Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 1 July.

BREASCLETE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Service and Bus Licensing

Mr. Bevan: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to bring in new provisions for road service licensing.

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Minister of Transport when he plans to implement the changes in bus licensing that are contained in the Transport Bill.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): If the House accepts tonight the amendments made in another place to the Transport Bill, I shall bring its road service licensing provisions into effect in October. Licences will then no longer be required for long distance services and will be easier to obtain for stage carriage ones. Apart from the abolition of conductor licensing at the end of July, the rest of the Bill's licensing provisions will come into force in the spring of next year.

Mr. Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the provisions will not reduce safety measures, particularly on buses, and that they will contribute towards greater efficiency and improvements on existing and new services? Will he also confirm that they will reduce the present level of bureaucracy?

Mr. Fowler: I can assure my hon. Friend on all those points. The safety standards are basic to the system and no changes are proposed. We intend to remove the restrictions that prevent new services from developing. One of the Bill's chief aims is to encourage new services for the travelling public.

Mr. Cockeram: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that there is now an opportunity in country districts to use more smaller vehicles, offering greater flexibility, and that when the customer requires, those vehicles should be provided by private enterprise?

Mr. Fowler: We expect that one of the major achievements of the Transport Bill will be to encourage new operators to come forward in rural areas. I agree that nothing is more important than to encourage new and smaller operators in rural areas.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general tendency for owners of small lorries to order much larger lorries and vans? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that?

Mr. Fowler: I shall look into that question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the hope that the Transport Bill, with its removal of restrictions, will lead to new services for the public. At present, the public fare served badly in many areas.

Mr. Booth: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the proposals in the reply that he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) can be put into effect only if the House rejects one of the Lords amendments tonight? Is not he aware that the amendment would sweep away a series of statutory safety standards that now apply to a certain category of bus?

Mr. Fowler: We shall discuss that issue when we debate the Transport Bill and the Lords amendment tonight and,


probably, on Thursday night. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is an Opposition spokesman, will welcome the new opportunities now presented, for example, by long distance express services. Those services will be of direct benefit to many thousands of people.

European Community (Motorway Toll Charges)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Transport if he will discuss with his European Economic Community transport colleagues the gradual removal of the toll charges on motorways within the Community.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): No, Sir. However, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, which embraces all Community Members, is studying the question of infrastructure charging for road use and it is expected that the place of tolls will be included.

Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for that statement. Does he not think that it is grossly unfair that during the coming holiday season British motorists travelling on the Continent will pay many hundreds of thousands of pounds towards the upkeep of Continental motorways, while Continental motorists coming here in the holiday season contribute nothing to the cost of our roads? Will he consider imposing a landing tax or some other sort of charge in order to provide a balance?

Mr. Clarke: No. The charges are not discriminatory between motorists of different countries. There is a general agreement that visitors to other countries must pay the taxes and charges there while visitors here pay our rates of fuel tax.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Minister look at the possibility of lifting the toll charge on tunnels? If that were done, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would be correct in his statement.

Mr. Clarke: There is a long-standing policy of all Governments that there is a justification for tolls on estuarial crossings of various kinds. It is necessary to keep those toll charges up to date.

A10 (Buntingford Bypass)

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the projected Buntingford bypass on the trunk road A10 and the timetabling of the implementation of this project.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Buntingford bypass is among schemes in the main trunk road programme for 1984 onwards.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My constituents no doubt will be grateful, after waiting so long for this crumb of comfort, that their bypass is at least included, but inevitably there will be some disappointment that it has such a delayed classification. Will my hon. and learned Friend undertake to expedite matters, as far as he can, for the provision of the bypass before the traffic thundering down the picturesque Buntingford High Street finally shatters the listed buildings that flank it, and the sensibilities of my constituents who live and work there?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to be able to reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that the bypass has not been deferred in any way. It remains in the main programme for 1984 onwards and that is the only practicable estimate of time that we could put upon it. It may appear to be deferred because the date, like that for many other schemes, is somewhat later than that in the last Government's White Paper. That is because that White Paper was full of over-optimistic dates, setting out targets for specific schemes that could not be achieved. Buntingford is being proceeded with as quickly as possible and it has not been deferred in any way.

Mr. Prescott: Since the Government's policy is to give greater priority to motorways than bypasses—which will aggravate the problems for many towns—will he be sympathetic to any restrictions placed on traffic going into those areas?

Mr. Clarke: I refute entirely the suggestion contained in some newspaper reports that we are giving priority to motorways as opposed to bypasses. We have inherited important major schemes, such as the M25 around London, which are taking a large proportion of the funds over the next few years. Our change


of policy and change of emphasis is to bring forward more bypasses of historic towns and villages, and as we get the major motorway programmes behind us, that will be the emerging pattern of road construction in the future.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: May I refer to my hon. and learned Friend's reference to the M25? He has now had the inspector's report for the Leatherhead-Ashtead intersection. When can we expect a decision on that?

Mr. Clarke: I do not have to tell my hon. Friend, whose constituency is involved, that this is an extremely difficult inquiry giving rise to a difficult decision. But we expect a decision very soon.

Motorway Construction

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Transport what percentage of public expenditure by his Department in 1980–81 and 1981–82 will be spent on motorway construction; and what percentage on railway electrification.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Planned expenditure on motorways and trunk roads is £302 million in 1980–81 and £298 million in 1981–82—at 1979 survey prices. That is about 13 per cent. of the public expenditure programmes for which our Department is responsible. Railway investment is not classified as public expenditure by the Department. The British Railways Board's investment ceiling in these years is £277 million—at 1979 survey prices—and I understand that it plans to spend about £8 million on new electrification schemes in each year.

Mr. Hooley: In the light of the Venice communiqué to which the Prime Minister is a signatory, would it not be more sensible to concentrate on an electrified railway system which can be powered essentially by coal, rather than on building more and more motorways, which will need an oil-based traffic system, when we will not have any oil?

Mr. Clarke: We have a study in progress on the electrification proposals for British Rail and we are awaiting the final results of that in the summer. We accept that there is a future for electrification of considerable parts of the railway network in this country. But that is not a case

for abandoning motorway building as well. There is a rough balance between road construction spending and railway investment in this country.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: May I make it clear that I have an interest in this question? Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the British Rail electrification programme is realistic, bearing in mind that those companies trying to export electrification schemes need to have a firm foundation to work on in this country?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that it is realistic. As part of the study we are considering how far it is justified to go in for a major programme in the future. We all expect the amount of electrification of the rail network to be increased in the future.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that we would welcome any additional expenditure on rail electrification? Will he consider roads electrification, bearing in mind the decisions of the summit conference that we should use more coal and nuclear energy? Will he therefore encourage the return of the trolley bus to our roads?

Mr. Clarke: The Government would not object to the reintroduction of trolley buses to our roads but there are no proposals forthcoming at present. There is a great deal of interest and research in electric vehicles of all kinds and the Government are anxious to encourage that.

Tachographs

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the introduction of tachographs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: I have to date approved approximately two-thirds of the proposed network of 450 major tachograph installation centres. This network is being supplemented by a number of more modestly equipped stations in remote areas.
I am not aware of any problems, but my Department's enforcement staff will be paying particular attention to compliance with the programme for fitting tachographs during their routine checks of vehicles.

Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the statement he made on 10 March exempting certain vehicles from the tachograph requirement did not take any cognisance of EEC regulations whereby the limit is 3·5 metric tons liveweight? In view of the fact that many vehicles leaving rural constituencies such as mine have a greater liveweight than that will he consider some form of exemption to carry them into the EEC?

Mr. Fowler: I shall look at that point again. Certainly my information is that we have taken as much as we safely can from the EEC regulations. However, I shall examine the point further.

London Transport (Capital Programmes)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport what capital programmes for London Transport have been cut in the last 12 months.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The overall control of London Transport's capital expenditure programme is a matter for the Greater London Council. I understand that, following the transport supplementary grant settlement for 1980–81, the council asked the London Transport Executive to reduce its capital budget for 1980 by £12 million. This is being achieved by the deferment or rephasing of a variety of projects.

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people think that, the more London Transport has spent on capital programmes in recent years, the worse has become the service and the higher the fares? In fact, there are 10 per cent. more people employed in London Transport now than there were in 1973. Will the Minister do something, either through the GLC or directly, to see that the unions co-operate in getting better productivity so that the commuter can get a better service?

Mr. Clarke: The GLC and London Transport are both now seriously discussing ways of improving performance on London Transport using the advice they have received from consultants commissioned by London Transport. I am sure that all those involved are fully aware of the need to improve the productivity of the system.

Mr. Spearing: Where contributions to capital amounts spent by London Transport are made by the Ministry of Transport and by the Treasury, is the Minister fully confident that there is proper value for money? Can he assure the House that in future the actual amounts under such grants are made known?

Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Member is concerned about new bus grant which has been paid to London Transport for the Fleet line buses, which have not proved very satisfactory. We only decide eligibility for grant, and there is no way in which the Department can take over from London Transport the choice of a particular type of bus. The buses LT has now ordered are very much more reliable.

Mr. Adley: While productivity may be one of the problems, is it not clear from the report to which my hon. and learned Friend referred that there is considerable criticism of management in London Transport's operations and of the relationship between London Transport and the GLC? Will my hon. and learned Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Minister about my proposal that British Rail should take over the running of London Transport rail services and that the National Bus Company should take over the running of the bus services, in view of the expertise that resides in both those bodies and the apparent lack of it in London Transport?

Mr. Clarke: To be fair, the report praised the technical efficiency of middle and line management in London Transport, though it made many criticisms of management in general and the executive. The GLC and London Transport are anxiously considering the recommenddations and it is for them to decide. Certainly my right hon. Friend will consider the rather more sweeping suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not know which report the Minister is referring to. I am more interested in the report by Leslie Chapman, the author of "Your Disobedient Servant", who points out that the London Transport management are taken round in chaffeur-driven limousines when they ought to be experiencing their own services. Is the hon.


and learned Gentleman aware that the passengers on the underground would love to see some of those over-paid and under-worked people using the services that the public have to use instead of being driven around in limousines?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Member knows that Sir Horace Cutler and the GLC also took a close interest in that report and some of its findings.

Traffic Offences

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek to introduce a new method of totting-up for traffic offences based on a points system.

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that such a change would be widely welcomed. I am therefore, glad to say that our working group on traffic law which has been considering this issue as part of its remit has made good progress and should be able to report on it shortly.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. May I ask him to look at my suggestion as a matter of priority, because there are millions of business users of motor cars to whom the present totting-up system can be unfair? Will my right hon. Friend therefor consider taking action as soon as possible?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that there would be great public support for a change along the lines that he suggests, not least among professional drivers such as lorry drivers. I cannot give any guarantee on legislative time, but I should like to make as much progress as quickly as I can.

Mr. Sheerman: When will the various working parties, such as that on the totting-up system, report? We hear so much from the Ministry about working parties—I could give examples of that considering motor cycles, and many other subjects—that are forever working, but never reporting. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we look forward to their reports, so that we can get effective action to cut down the number of deaths on the roads?

Mr. Fowler: The Government are making much greater progress with motor cycle safety than was the case previously.

I gladly take to heart what the hon. Gentleman said about the report on totting-up. I should point out that the working party was set up only a few months ago, but I hope that we shall soon have the results of its work on totting-up.

Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the present system is principally arbitrary, based as it is largely on Vascar traps and radar? Will he consider removing some of the petty and minor offences that form the totting-up procedure, thereby introducing a fairer system?

Mr. Fowler: We want a fairer system which distinguishes between the undoubtedly serious offences such as reckless driving and the less serious offences, such as breaches of some of the construction and use regulations. Many other countries have introduced a points system which distinguishes in seriousness between various traffic offences. I believe that that would be in the interests of the travelling public and I believe that there would be great public support for it.

Roads Policy

Mr. Heddle: asked the Minister of Transport what response he has received to his White Paper, "Policy for Roads, England 1980".

Mr. Wickenden: asked the Minister of Transport if he has received any reaction to the White Paper on policy for roads.

Mr. Fowler: Generally favourable.

Mr. Heddle: May I thank my right hon. Friend for including in the recent White Paper the green light enabling Tamworth to receive its long overdue bypass, by way of the M42? However, does he agree that it is still essential, from a conservationist and environmental point of view, that heavy traffic be taken away from such centres and that he should continue to give top priority to the construction of bypasses?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition of the progress that is being made on the M42 south of Birmingham. I agree that we should make as much progress as we can on bypasses. I would expect the balance to change in future from motorway and


major trunk road building to much more emphasis on bypasses, for exactly the sort of reasons that my hon. Friend put forward.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In view of the importance placed in the White Paper on maintaining adequate road transport links with our ports, can the Minister say when he expects to make a decision on the M3 public inquiry, which took place about three years ago?

Mr. Fowler: I understand the concern among hon. Members about that road. I hope that we shall be able to come to a decision on it shortly.

Mr. Thompson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while my constituents generally welcome the White Paper, they are still worried about the road that runs between Hebden Bridge and Todmorden and the planning blight attached to it? May we have an early decision in this matter?

Mr. Fowler: Yes.

Mr. Ennals: Is the Minister aware, from his visit to Norfolk and Norwich at the weekend, that there is great dissatisfaction among business interests, those concerned with tourism and traffic to the ports and others about the delay on dates for the improvement of the A11 and A47, compared with the dates set by the previous Government in 1978?

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The dates set out by the previous Government in the 1978 roads White Paper bore no relation to the resources that would be available and were entirely theoretical dates. Having seen the position in Norfolk for myself I understand the concern that he and other Norfolk Members have expressed, particularly on the All and the A47.

Mr. Booth: In view of the importance that the Minister has said that he attaches to bypasses in connection with the White Paper, will he reconsider his decision to postpone the Dalton bypass in my constituency? Will he concede that the other improvements to the A590, important as they are, will merely worsen the position of Dalton as a traffic bottleneck and will bring about considerable problems for the residents of that area?

Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly look at that point. There is no way is which I shall be able to fit all the bypasses that we all know ought to be built in this country into the programme for the next four years. We are spending more than was spent during the last two years of the previous Government, because we have managed to eradicate the problem of underspending which delayed so much in those years.

Public Transport Fares

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Transport what has been the average percentage increase in public transport fares since May 1979.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In the 12 months to May 1980, the average percentage fare increase for rail and bus travel has been 28 per cent.

Mr. Canavan: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the increase in fares has been even greater than the 21·9 per cent. rate of inflation caused by the Government and that part of the reason for that has been the Government's cuts in subsidies to public transport bodies and local authorities? Does he agree that the Government, instead of increasing fares, should take action to decrease fares, which will encourage more people to use public transport rather than private transport and will thereby encourage the conservation of energy?

Mr. Clarke: The major constituents in transport costs are fuel and wages. Fuel and oil costs have increased by 50 per cent. over the past 12 months and I shall not labour excessively what has happened to wage increases. There have been some economies in revenue support, but they have not been drastic and they are a comparatively minor cause of the present problems.

Mr. Adley: Relating this question again directly to London Transport, may I ask whether my hon. and learned Friend agrees that there is a direct relationship between fares and services in London and that if fares go up, the standard of service goes down? Will he note that there seems to be some evidence that, if we are not careful, the Government or their successors will have to face a collapse of public transport in London, because the consumer will not be able to


afford the fares and the service will become unacceptable to those using it?

Mr. Clarke: The situation is serious but not so dramatic, perhaps, as that in London at the moment. I accept that one of the main restraining influences on fares is the need to improve the efficiency of the system and increase productivity in the use of manpower. There comes a stage, if everyone hands on fare increases to the public, when it is counter-productive and the public refuse to pay and take up other means of transport.

Mr. Flannery: Has the Minister taken note of the successful low fares policy with which the South Yorkshire county council and the Sheffield district council has persisted? Will he note that this matter was put before the people at the last elections and resulted in a resounding victory? Has he noticed that more people are using road transport in that area and using it to an increasing extent compared with anywhere else in Britain?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's last statement cannot be supported. I know of no evidence to support it. The South Yorkshire county council is not running a successful low fares policy. It is very expensive and wasteful and is being paid for by the ratepayers of South Yorkshire.

Mr. Stanbrook: What inquiries are taking place to find alternative sources of revenue for public transport, apart from fares and State subsidies? Has my hon. and learned Friend considered the situation that applies to the Paris metropolitan system, under which a third of the revenue, I understand, is obtainable from such sources?

Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the arrangements made in Paris, but careful consultation would be required before new forms of taxation were introduced that might affect employment possibilities in London.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he cannot get away with his arguments about South Yorkshire? Will he accept that, in South Yorkshire, more people are travelling by bus than on any other passenger transport system in the country?

Mr. Clarke: There is no doubt that people who use buses in South York

shire tend to make more regular use of them because the fares are lower. As far as I am aware, people are not being diverted from cars on to buses. The same people are using them more often, at enormous expense to the ratepayers of South Yorkshire. There can be few other areas of the country where the general public would be prepared to pay such fantastic costs for artificially low fares.

Roads

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has to keep up the standards of maintenance of the roads in the light of the proposals of the White Paper on roads.

Mr. Fowler: Maintaining trunk roads and motorways is one of the three main priorities mentioned in my roads White Paper. We must protect the value of the huge investment made over the years in road construction with adequate maintenance today. My proposals for tackling this include identifying those stretches of heavily trafficked roads which require early treatment and carrying out a programme to get repairs completed quickly, economically and with as little traffic disruption as possible.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister agree that motorway maintenance is likely to take a far higher share of the budget in the immediate years ahead? Will not this mean that a smaller amount will be spent on trunk road schemes? Does he not agree that any skimping of the road maintenance programme is a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy—a policy that the Government are pursuing in so many other directions?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Government of pursuing that kind of policy in road investment and maintenance when we look at the record of the previous Government during their last two years. The position has improved. I agree that road maintenance is of the greatest importance. It will become increasingly important over the next decade.

Mr. Watson: Has the Minister noticed that, of the 115 schemes proposed in the White Paper for postponement or cancellation, no fewer than seven happen to be in the constituency of Skipton, which I am


proud to represent? Is this deliberate? Is the Minister's mind open? Is he prepared to hear logical, dispassionate, sincere and intellectual argument to the effect that at least two or three of these schemes might be restored to their original priority?

Mr. Fowler: I am always open to sincere and intellectual arguments. I look forward to a discussion with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister accept that the deterioration of roads and pavements in cities is a matter of grave concern for elderly people and others? Is he aware that city highway authorities do not have the money to maintain them properly, which means that the danger is growing daily? What, if anything, does he propose to do to help?

Mr. Fowler: About £500 million a year is going towards local road maintenance. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the national survey showing that, over the last four or five years, local roads have improved rather than deteriorated. If the hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees, I would point out that during most of that time, the Labour Government were in power. I am concerned about the issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. I shall give more thought to them.

Sealink

Mr. Delwyn Williams: asked the Minister of Transport if he has received any proposals for private investment in Sealink.

Mr. Fowler: The chairman of the British Railways Board has made proposals for introducing capital into several of the board's subsidiaries, including Sea-link. I am discussing these proposals with him.

Mr. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the denationalisation of British Rail subsidiaries, especially Sea-link, would be of great benefit to the employees and to the long-suffering public? Would it not make the subsidiaries attempt to be commercially viable and efficient?

Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Under this plan the sub

sidiaries will be freed from public sector restraints. We would hope to see further development of these subsidiaries. One of the products of such a process will be not only wealth creation but job creation.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be full and adequate consultation with the trade unions before this process comes about and before any legislation is introduced in the House? Is he aware that any suggestion of lessening British Rail control over the subsidiaries will be resisted to the full by the trade unions and by hon. Members?

Mr. Fowler: I give an assurance to the hon. Gentleman that consultation will take place. I am seeing Sidney Weighell and the National Union of Railwaymen this evening on this subject. There is a great deal of common ground. We all want the subsidiaries to expand. We all want a continuing link with the railways, but we also surely want the benefit of private capital. The important matter is not the ideological views of the hon. Gentleman but the development of these businesses.

National Ports Council

Mr. Thornton: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his consideration of the future of the National Ports Council.

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to abolish the National Ports Council. This will place firmly on the ports industry the responsibility, through the British Ports Association, for improving the industry's efficiency and performance. I know that it welcomes this and I am satisfied with the arrangements it proposes to this end.
The legislation will also provide for the transfer to my Department of a few essential functions of the National Ports Council which cannot be taken over by the British Ports Association.

Mr. Thornton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will there be any saving to public funds from the abolition of the National Ports Council?

Mr. Fowler: The major saving will be a saving to the industry which at the moment, finances the National Ports


Council through the levy system. That is costing over £1 million a year. The proposal is supported overwhelmingly by the industry, including my hon. Friend's own port.

Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that this is one of the most retrograde steps taken by any Government? The answer to the problems of the ports is not to abolish the National Ports Council but to pursue a policy of co-ordinating the ports throughout the country and bringing them under public control.

Mr. Fowler: With all our experience in this country of bringing industries under public control. I do not think that anyone in his right mind would go down that path. What is needed is for the ports industry to take greater responsibility over its own affairs. This is what our policy is about. It is, I believe, the way forward for the ports industry.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Why has the right hon. Gentleman appointed the existing chairman of the National Ports Council to take over the functions of the chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company on a part-time basis? He has now transferred, without fee, unlike Mr. MacGregor, the existing chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company to an already defunct organisation. Is this playing fair?

Mr. Fowler: It is certainly playing fair. I believe that Sir Arthur Peterson, in his new role as chairman of the National Ports Council, has an important role to play in winding down the National Ports Council and looking after the interests of the staff. There is a further question on the Order Paper concerning Sir John Page.

Cyclists

Mr. Mawby: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to improve safety for cyclists.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes, Sir. We are taking a fresh look at the whole subject of cycling in order to decide how best to improve facilities and safety for cyclists, and my right hon. Friend will be publishing a consultation paper shortly.

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Will he pay par

ticular attention to all the experiments that have taken place in the separation of cyclists from general traffic? Secondly, will he pay attention to the tremendous fuel saving involved when more people start cycling?

Mr. Clarke: Certainly, Sir. The Department already gives advice and limited funds to experimental schemes segregating cyclists from other traffic. We are anxious to have some more of these schemes coming forward, and we shall offer such assistance as we can.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that there have been a considerable number of foreign cycles dumped on the British market recently, which have not been safe to start with and which have contributed to a considerable number of accidents? They have also put off many people from cycling. Will he take steps to introduce a British standard for bicycles which would lead to safe machines being sold in Britain?

Mr. Clarke: We are certainly anxious to look at that problem. We are already contemplating, for instance, a new regulation on braking standards as soon as a new British standard can be arrived at. It is important that we maintain safety standards on British-made and imported bicycles.

Mr. Forman: Perhaps I may declare an interest as a part-time fair-weather cyclist. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that we must welcome the Government's new-found, positive attitude towards cyclists and pedestrians? Will he assure the House that when the consultations that he has announced are complete, there will be more positive action from the Government, including, perhaps, a requirement on local authorities to provide safe cycle tracks?

Mr. Clarke: We hope that the consultation paper will lead to a useful exercise. We are anxious to provoke more suggestions from those interested in cycling as to exactly what steps they would like the Government to be taking. Whether we shall impose new requirements or statutory duties on local authorities to spend funds on new facilities is a different matter, because we must have regard to the economic problems facing local authorities.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the conditions out in the country? Many people are worried about his complacency over the maintenance of roads. Is he aware that that relates directly to the safety of cyclists and motor cyclists? Not only has the Parliamentary Secretary never been to Sheffield to try its public transport system; he has not been on the roads of places such as Kirkburton in my constituency, where the roads have so many potholes—under his Administration—that they are a danger to motor cyclists and cyclists.

Mr. Clarke: Kirkburton is a bit of a bicycle ride from where I usually spend my time. However, we are not complacent about maintenance. We are spending an ever-increasing amount on the maintenance of trunk roads and other roads. I quite accept that, in judging what is the right level of maintenance, we must have regard to the interests of two-wheeled travellers.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Mr. Conlan: asked the Minister of Transport what is the ratio of vehicle excise duty to road expenditure in 1980–81.

Mr. Fowler: The vehicle excise duty yield is expected to be £1,300 million and road expenditure approximately £1,950 million. The estimated ratio is 0·7:1.

Mr. Conlan: Does the Minister recall that during the last election campaign, his party promised to reduce taxation? This year road users are paying £7 billion in taxes—£2½ billion more than in the last year of the Labour Government. Is the Minister aware that the average car user now pays £7 a week and has to put up with more congestion, more potholes, more delays and more dangers, as a direct result of the present Government's road policy?

Mr. Fowler: That is all very well—if it were not for the fatal flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument. The present Government are spending more not less, upon trunk road investment and road maintenance. That is because of the pure incompetence of the previous Labour Government, who were not even able to spend the money that was allocated to those things.

Mr. McCrindle: What about all those motorists who pay nothing at all towards the maintenance of roads and so on? Is the Minister satisfied that we are making suitable progress in reducing the apparently large number of people who get away for, seemingly, a very long time, without paying vehicle excise duty?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct about that. We have already had one campaign concerning this matter. Another campaign is now in being. I assure my hon. Friend that the present Government will take every action open to them to detect vehicle excise duty evaders, because I agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong and is something which the public abhor.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware that, according to the House of Commons Library, there has not been a debate in this House on roads initiated by any Government for at least the last 30 years? Can the Minister think of any instance in which so much money has been spent with so little discussion?

Mr. Fowler: As I have said previously to the hon. Gentleman, no one would be more pleased than I would if we could arrange a debate upon roads policy in this House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a matter of importance and that it is something which should be debated on the Floor of the House. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Vehicle Components

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that vehicle components, including those imported, conform to construction and use regulations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Substantial resources are already devoted by the Department, through type approval of cars and annual testing schemes, and by the police, to ensuring that vehicles and their components comply with construction and use requirements. I have no evidence to suggest that components generally fail to meet our standards, but I am always ready to consider available evidence and the need for appropriate action.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that many people in the vehicle industry are unhappy with the existing limited tests which are made? Will he look particularly at tightening up the system of testing imported components, where some of the dangers could lie?

Mr. Clarke: There are 150,000 convictions a year for breach of the construction and use regulations. We are doing our best to enforce them. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about some imported parts. We have investigated brake diaphragms. We are looking for evidence, as complaints are arising about brake linings. If the hon. Gentleman will produce any evidence that he has about substandard imported parts, we shall be anxious to investigate it.

Car-sharing

Mr. Waller: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will launch a campaign to publicise the changes in the law relating to car-sharing when the Transport Bill receives Royal Assent.

Mr. Fowler: The Transport Bill removes the remaining restrictions on the advertising of car sharing. I plan to bring the relevant provisions into force in October. Notes for guidance are being prepared and I am holding discussions with local authorities, companies and voluntary organisations. I am intending to encourage motorists to take full advantage of the new opportunities.

Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that car-sharing has the potential to play a most useful part in reducing wasteful congestion and the use of fuel? Does he agree that the use of public expenditure in this way could be extremely cost-effective? Will he, therefore, consider using all possible means of advertising, including television?

Mr. Fowler: We shall certainly consider whatever means we can to encourage car-sharing, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. In London, for example, in the peak hours about 130,000 cars are coming into London, carrying only 176,000 people. I think that that shows the kind of potential that car-sharing has. There is great potential in the rural areas, as well.

Mr. Maxton: Has the Minister considered discussing with his right hon.

Friend the Home Secretary any changes that may be necessary in the Representation of the People Act in terms of carriage of electors to the polls in relation to his new car-sharing law?

Mr. Fowler: No, I have not discussed that matter. I do not think that any change is needed, but I shall certainly take that point on board.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend consider examining and, perhaps introducing, the scheme which operates in Istanbul using vehicles known as dolmus? A dolmus is a vehicle which is like a taxi, which picks up people on the way down a pre-ordained route and puts them down on that route—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It is called a bus.

Mr. Marlow: It does not fill up just once. It is like a bus, but it is a taxi. It is more flexible than a bus. The charge is about a quarter of the price of a taxi. It is very useful in some parts of the world. It could be a very useful innovation in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fowler: I welcome my hon. Friend's example. I think that the general point that he makes is very good—that we should look at new ways of serving the travelling public. I believe that car-sharing is one way and the Government are certainly prepared to look at other new, alternative, ways, because I believe that the criterion should be the service to the travelling public. That is what matters, above all.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister still satisfied that those people offering their cars for car-sharing will not have to pay an extra premium on their insurance and, indeed, that the passengers in the car, if involved in an incident, are not likely to be denied a claim for damages because it is considered that it is "hire and reward" scheme?

Mr. Fowler: I am convinced on both of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. In case there is any doubt, I think that the message should go forth that insurance policies cover car-sharing. That was one of the things—and I pay tribute to them—that the previous Government cleared up. Therefore, the obstacles in the way of car-sharing have now been removed. I believe that this


can make a very useful contribution to urban and rural mobility.

M63 (Stockport)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the stages of the M63 in Stockport now under construction to be completed.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Spring 1982.

Mr. Bennett: In view of the increasing number of people who are out of work in the construction industry, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider trying to speed up the contract so that that section of the road can be opened more quickly? Will he, particularly, look at the way in which the contracts should go on to the next stage so that we can have some continuity of construction within Stockport?

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that taking more people on will speed up construction. The problem is diverting the work of statutory undertakers at the moment. We are anxious to get on with the next section from Portwood to Denton. We hope to publish our Highways Act proposals this summer and I expect that construction will begin in the 1982–83 period.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Manpower

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the latest figure of the total numbers of industrial and non-industrial civil servants, how this compares with 12 months before; and what is his estimate of the figure 12 months hence.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): At 1 April 1979 there were 732,000 staff in post. Of these 565,800 were non-industrials and 166,500 industrials. At 1 April 1980 the corresponding figures were 705,100, 547,700 and 157,400. As a result of the Government's action to reduce the size of the Civil Service, I expect the total to be well under 700,000 by the end of this financial year.

Mr. Chapman: May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming a Privy Councillor? I hope that that business goes in strictly alphabetical order. So far as the planned reduction of the

total number of civil servants to 630,000 by 1984 is concerned, given the annual turnover of people retiring and those voluntarily leaving non-Civil Service jobs, cannot that figure easily be obtained by recruiting three people for every four who leave? There is, therefore, no need for any forced redundancies.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Concerning the reduction of staff to 630,000 by May 1984, we are certainly not looking for compulsory redundancies. I think that there will be very few of them. I certainly hope so. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there will be a large number of people leaving through natural wastage. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to achieve our objective largely through voluntary redundancies.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman take pride in the fact that he is further increasing the number of people unemployed? Will he tell me how such people will obtain alternative employment and thereby reduce the unemployment figures, which are catastrophic and a disgrace both to the country and to the Government?

Mr. Channon: I am not increasing the unemployment figures. As I said a moment ago—[Interruption.] I hope that the House will allow me to give—

Mr. Heffer: If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that he understands nothing.

Mr. Channon: I should like to be allowed to answer the question. I am not increasing the unemployment figures. As I said to my hon. Friend, the vacancies will occur through natural wastage and large numbers of people retiring. I understand the point about school leavers and recruitment opportunities. Surely the House recognises that the way to resolve the country's economic problem is not by creating artificial jobs in the public sector but by trying to expand the private sector and encouraging the productive sector of the community.

Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a large and important section of the work force in his Department are the humble ladies who do a darned good job cleaning up Civil Service


establishments? Is the policy of the Government to do away with these ladies, take them off the payroll and hand over the gravy to the so-called private enterprise cleaning agencies?

Mr. Channon: Our policy on cleaners is that Departments are asked to use the most economical form of cleaning. The practice will vary from one Department to another.

Manpower Costs

Mr. Marlow: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is his estimate of the cash savings to be made annually in reducing the Civil Service from 700,000 to 630,000; and what will be the additional cost of paying the private sector for work which will still need to be done but will not be done, after the reduction, by the Civil Service.

Mr. Channon: Detailed plans of the Departments' savings have yet to be settled, but the gross savings could be £500 million a year at current prices by 1984. It is too early to say how much this will be offset by the cost of work put out to the private sector.

Mr. Marlow: As I am sure that my right hon. Friend would never, under any circumstances, wish to mislead the public, may I ask him, when he gives figures in future about the reduction in the size of the Civil Service, to say, at the same time, what, if any, additional costs have been incurred by putting out work to the private sector?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I have no wish to mislead the public. Plans are being drawn up in detail in every Department. When they have been drawn up in full I shall be able to give a full picture to my hon. Friend.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would that represent a reduction in the gross national product?

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman is a better economist than I am. I leave that matter to him.

Mr. Tom Benyon: May I tell my right hon. Friend that, though we are all at one with him in our efforts to save money, I am sure that we would be wrong to discriminate against civil servants? I

believe we have done that by using them as a whipping boy for all the problems of society and by what I consider to be the gross inequity of denying to civil servants and members of the Armed Forces those tax reliefs obtained by other United Kingdom residents on overseas service. Civil servants are currently denied these reliefs and I believe that that is monstrously unfair.

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with the first half of my hon. Friends question. As to the second half, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is well aware of the problem but I will draw it to his attention again.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the Minister's Department is responsible for open government, and for the provision of as much information as possible to the House and to the public, will he try to get his hon. Friends who are responsible for bringing in this army of civilian mercenaries to do Civil Service jobs to publish the facts and figures about them so that we may all see what savings, if any, are being achieved?

Mr. Channon: I think that the hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, exaggerates the situation. There is no question of an army of civilian mercenaries. A small percentage of the savings in the Civil Service will result from work going out to the private sector.

Mr. Jay: What is the national gain in paying these people to do nothing rather than paying them to do some work?

Mr. Channon: As I explained to the House a moment ago, the savings in the Civil Service will be achieved largely as a result of people retiring or leaving the service, anyway. During the next three years it is estimated that almost 250,000 people will leave the service in the normal way.

Information Storage and Retrieval

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made with technology agreements within Government Departments so that best use can be made of computerised office equipment, modern


telematics and information, and computerised storage and retrieval.

Mr. Channon: A great deal of equipment incorporating recent developments in technology is used in Government Departments. Full advantage of computerised equipment and other forms of new technology will continue to be taken. We should much prefer to introduce this equipment with the active co-operation of the Civil Service unions and discussions are taking place with that intention.

Mr. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, following the Select Committee visit to the United States—since I tabled this question—there is ample evidence there, in Government Departments and commercial offices, of the use of word processors, microfiche and terminals for video screens. Is it not a fact that his Department has taken a long time to achieve the co-operation which already exists in other countries?

Mr. Channon: There is a large number of microcomputers in operation in the Civil Service already. About 250 word processors and 500 automatic typewriters are being used and more are in train. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and I shall continue to examine it as a matter of the greatest urgency.

Mr. Cryer: How can the Minister expect co-operation when he and his Government are using the Civil Service as a whipping boy for their own mistaken policies and while the Government are embarking on slashing cuts in numbers in the Service? Does not the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that civil servants will be concerned to preserve and maintain jobs? Does he realise that, in such circumstances, they will not be prepared to collaborate with a Government who are determined to destroy jobs and add to the enormously long dole queues?

Mr. Channon: I think that the hon. Gentleman wholly misrepresents the position. The Civil Service unions have, traditionally, always taken a most constructive attitude to the introduction of new technology and I have every reason to believe that they will continue to do so.

Mr. Butcher: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage and build the development of the British information technology in

dustry is through an enlightened and coordinated Government purchasing policy, and that the best vehicle for making such decision might be the Department of Industry?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I think I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Manpower

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the current total of industrial and non-industrial civil servants employed by the Government.

Mr. Channon: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that his reply to the question on cuts in Civil Service manpower was totally unsatisfactory? How can he say that the Government's target of cutting 110,000 Civil Service jobs will not affect unemployment? Is it not sick news for the 179,000 young people on the unemployment register that those job opportunities are not available to them when they leave school?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member has once again outlined the clear difference that exists between him and me on this issue. I believe that the future prosperity of this country depends on our creating real jobs in the private, wealth-producing sector. It does not depend on the artificial creation of unnecessary jobs in the public sector.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. After discussions through the usual channels, arrangements have now been made for consideration of the Lords amendments to the Transport Bill to be adjourned tonight and resumed at the end tomorrow. As a result, consideration of the orders previously announced for debate at the end on Thursday will be postponed.

BILLS PRESENTED

DISPOSAL OF DEAD BODIES

Mr. Harry Greenaway presented a Bill to amend the law with regard to the manner of disposal of the bodies of deceased persons; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed [Bill 229].

SOLICITORS (DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Donald Dewar presented a Bill to enable more members to be appointed to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal; to increase the amount of the maximum fine it may impose and empower the Secretary of State to alter that increased amount; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed [Bill 230].

SUNDAY TRADING LAWS

Mr. Clement Freud: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the laws pertaining to Sunday trading; and for connected purposes.
Three years ago I proposed a similar Bill to this, seeking to amend the Sunday trading laws. Although my argument was heard with courtesy and interest, a mass lobby from the Members' Tea Room defeated me on the vote. Since that date, people have continued to engage in Sunday trading. It continues to be largely illegal, and local authorities continue, when they have nothing better to do, to bring selective prosecutions against the traders.
My contention in bringing forward a Bill to amend the Sunday trading laws is that individual consumers are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to shop on a Sunday. Shopkeepers can determine for themselves whether they want to open and there is no need for the State to act like an interfering, mollycoddling nanny, intervening in this process.
I suggest that the House looks at the current state of play. Since 1464 there has been concern about Sunday trading from two sources. Originally it was the Church. Later it was the unions. As a result, England and Wales had a no-trading law, which has been relaxed over the years in respect of perishable goods, chemists' prescriptions, souvenirs and momentoes, newspapers and magazines—though not Bibles—and refreshments. With local authority consent, shops in seaside resorts may be licenced to open on 18 Sundays a year. There is also exemption for shops owned by people practising a religion for which the day of worship falls on a day other than a Sunday. Those shopkeepers close on their traditional days of worship.
The abuses are legion and the prosecutions are selective. Hon. Members may say "Thank heavens for that", because if they were not selective no one could open on a Sunday and survive. The House has heard on many occasions what can and cannot be done. A law that allows anyone to enter a shop and buy a bicycle wheel, a bicycle frame, brakes,


handlebars and gears, but not a bicycle has to be pretty bad. A law that allows a motorist to buy a tyre, but stops a pedestrian from buying a shoe is one that the House would rightly view with suspicion.
I have a selection of letters in support of my contention that the Sunday trading laws should be amended. These letters are so numerous that I shall keep them for a Committee, when they may be used to while away a half hour or so. However, the National Consumer Council and Woman magazine have done the most careful research into what people want. One of the first questions in a survey asked on which day the bulk of household shopping was done. Monday came out with 2 per cent. and Wednesday with 4 per cent. That shows that shops could close on at least two days when the shopworkers would have the benefit of a day off and the business would hardly suffer.
Another question asked which shops would be visited if they opened on a Sunday. Food shops featured in 43 per cent. of the replies and furniture shops in 37 per cent. It is important to remember that when there is a major purchase it is only right that the whole family should be involved in the choice. Sunday opening allows people who work and kids who go to school to go together to make such a major purchase. The same would apply in the case of a motor car. It is currently legal to go to a garage and sit in a car with a view to buying it on another day. It has been ruled illegal to start the engine and take a test drive on a Sunday.
My Bill does not seek to permit here what happens currently in Scotland, where anyone may open anything on a Sunday, except a hairdresser—unless he is Jewish.
I share the concern of USDAW that widespread Sunday opening, introduced suddenly, with shopworkers offered two or three times their normal pay, would make it difficult for them to refuse to work on Sundays, and this could lead to misery and break-up among families.
My Bill is a simple one. It would seek to exempt garden centres from Sunday trading laws. There is a strong case in favour of that.
The Bill would regularise Sunday markets, so that when local authority criteria are met the market can operate weekly instead of having to move on, like a Dickensian vagrant, every three months.
The Bill would allow shops that open for the legal sale of some goods to sell such other goods as they normally stock. That would mean that chemists' shops would not have to lock up the talcum powder and the razors while being allowed to sell razor blades and dispense prescriptions.
The Bill would allow a fish and chip shop to sell fish and chips on a Sunday. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that at the moment a Chinese take-away can sell fish and chips while a fish and chip shop cannot. The fish and chip shop, on the other hand, may sell Chinese take-away goods on a Sunday.
The Bill would give local authorities the right to license Sunday opening of shops in other than seaside towns. Currently, the only way in which an abuse of the law can be sanctioned is for the enforcing authority to turn a blind eye, and that is unsatisfactory.
The four points will be seen as a modest though significant move to keep up with the times. I wish to make clear that I am in no way interfering with people's rights to have a quiet, contemplative Sunday at home. I query the right of the unions, the Lord's Day Observance Society and the Government to impose a dismal day on those who do not wish to have one.
When a law is archaic, in that the lifestyle for which it was conceived has changed; when it is complex to the point of being unenforceable; when it is counter to public order and being steadily flouted, there is, in my contention, a good case for changing it.
There is a Government in power who promised to support free enterprise, to encourage small business, and to cease to interfere in our daily lives; one would suppose that it would not have taken them 14 months to make noises in the direction of liberalising Sunday trading. After these 14 months of silence, I beg leave to bring forward this legislation, and I ask the House to agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I should like to declare an interest. I


am sponsored in this House by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, whose members obviously have a real interest in the possibility of Sunday trading. I should like to make clear to the House that shop workers—many years ago I was a shop worker—are deeply concerned about this matter, and over the years they have been a very hard-pressed group in the distributive industry. Their conditions have been poor, and their wages have been low. This proposal will restrict their leisure time, despite the fact that they will be paid overtime, and so on. If the law is changed, many shop workers will feel compelled to work on Sundays, and the mass of the union membership and shop workers in general—those outside the union, also—do not wish to work on Sundays.
I want to emphasise the economic side of the problem. It is no use the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) telling us that those shopkeepers who wish to open can open and those who wish to close can close. We all know that in this hard world of High Street commercialism, when one shopkeeper opens his shop, the others think that they are losing business and they open their shops.
In these days, when there is a need to control inflation, the argument about inflation also comes into the picture. We must not delude ourselves into thinking that we are giving greater freedom to the consumer to buy at any time he wishes. When I worked in a shop there was an old saying that if we closed at midnight there would always be a customer knocking at the door at one minute past midnight, wishing to buy something when the shop had closed. If we pander to the general public in this

way, by giving them so-called greater freedom, we are, in effect, making the position worse for the shopkeepers and for the general public.

Service has to be paid for by someone, and ultimately it has to be paid for in the commodity that a person buys in the shop. In other words, there is only so much business to be done, and there are only so many goods to be purchased by the consumer. If we spread that over 20 hours instead of eight or 10 hours, the trade is spread out but the overheads continue. The electricity, gas, general overheads, wages, and so on, must be increased. Who will pay for them? The increase will be passed down to the consumer in the price of the commodity that he purchases. So we are acting against the Government's declared pleas to cut inflation by agreeing to a Bill that will ultimately increase the opening hours of a shop. It may give greater freedom to the consumer but there will be an increase in costs and a worsening of conditions for those people who work in shops.

I know that the trade union of which I am a member and that sponsors me in this House bitterly opposes a worsening of the hours of shop workers on Sundays. Therefore, I hope that the House will oppose any move to change the Sunday trading laws in the way that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely suggests. I propose to divide the House on the issue.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 121.

Division No. 371]
AYES
[3.45 pm


Adley, Robert
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Elliott, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Ashton, Joe
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Banks, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Forman, Nigel
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Bowden, Andrew
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Magee, Bryan


Brinton, Tim
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Butcher, John
Grieve, Percy
Maynard, Miss Joan


Canavan, Dennis
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)
Montgomery, Fergus


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Crouch, David
Heddle, John
Morton, George


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Murphy, Christopher


Deakins, Eric
Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David


Dubs, Alfred
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)




Proctor, K. Harvey
Steen, Anthony
Watson, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stevens, Martin
Wheeler, John


Richardson, Jo
Stokes, John
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Thompson, Donald
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Robertson, George
Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)



Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)
Trippier, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)
Mr. Clement Freud and


Soley, Clive
Waller, Gary
Mr. Harry Greenway.


Speller, Tony






NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Neubert, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Newens, Stanley


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
O'Halloran, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Park, George


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
George, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Biggs-Davison, John
Graham, Ted
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Blackburn, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Prescott, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hardy, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cant, R. B
Homewood, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Huckfield, Les
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheerman, Barry


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Robin F.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Spence, John


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stoddart, David


Crowther, J. S.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Strang, Gavin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kerr, Russell
Straw, Jack


Dalyell, Tam
Kimball, Marcus
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Lamble, David
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lamborn, Harry
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Torney, Tom


Dixon, Donald
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Douglas, Dick
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Dover, Denshore
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
McQuarrie, Albert
Wigley, Dafydd


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilkinson, John


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Winnick, David


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Woodall, Alec


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian
Young, David (Bolton East)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)



Fitt, Gerard
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molyneaux, James
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Forrester, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Bruce Milan: I beg to move,
That this House calls for urgent action by the Government to reverse the appalling rise in unemployment due to the failure of the Government's industrial and economic policies with its particularly disastrous consequences for school leavers, young people and the disadvantaged.
This debate takes place against the background of the unemployment figures issued yesterday. These, as I hope the Government recognise, have led to an explosion of anger, concern and anxiety as the consequences of Government policy come home to the people of this country. I very much hope that as a result of that anxiety and anger, as well as what will be said in the House today, about these appalling unemployment figures the Government will take heed before it is too late and before the continuation of current policies results in complete disaster for our economy and industry.
The theme that I want to develop this afternoon—the main point that I want to make—is that if yesterday's figures are tragic, the figures as they will appear over the next few months and years will be considerably worse. That is absolutely inevitable, given the trend which has already been established. Secondly, these worsening unemployment figures are a deliberate and inevitable consequence of Government policies. They have not arisen as a side effect of, or as incidental to, the main thrust of Government economic policies. They are inevitable, and were inevitable right from the start when the Government adopted their present monetary policies.
The Government are deliberately trying to squeeze inflation out of the economy—I shall return to this later—by reducing output and increasing unemployment. What we saw yesterday is only the start of a process which will get worse as the months and years pass. It is no use the Government, either in their amendment or in anything else, expressing concern

about a rate of unemployment which they have deliberately created. If, in their economic policies, the Government go back to the policies of the 1930s, inevitably we shall have unemployment on the scale of the 1930s. Yesterday's figures represent a start of that process.
I need not spend a great deal of time on the figures themselves, because they have already received considerable publicity today. At 1·66 million, the figure is the highest since the war. Even seasonally adjusted, at 1·54 million it is still the highest since the war. The increase during the past month in seasonally adjusted figures—and I am not talking about the crude increase of 150,000, which is a complete disaster—was 51,000, which is an accelerating increase over the increases of the past six months, which have added, on a seasonally adjusted basis, no less than 230,000 to the unemployment figures.
If the general figures are bad, the figure for school leavers is even worse. It now stands at 187,000. an increase of more than 137,000 in one month. Yet that figure has not reached its peak for the current year, because the inevitable large increase in July will take the figure to more than 250,000. That is absolutely inevitable. In addition, the school leavers will not be absorbed over the coming months on anything like the scale to which we have become accustomed in recent years. As the economy deteriorates there will be increasing difficulty in absorbing those school leavers over the next few months.
The Scottish figure has risen by a disastrous 26,000 in one month, to 223,000—the worst Scottish figure since the war. That is a reflection of the fact that because the school leaving age is earlier in Scotland the full impact of youth unemployment has already expressed itself. What is true for Scotland this month will be true for England and Wales next month. The figures are a tragedy for youngsters. They are a tragedy especially for the least qualified youngsters who leave school with little in the way of academic qualifications. The most disadvantaged people are worst hit by the unemployment figures.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's statement by the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, means


that qualified youngsters who will not now have the opportunity to join the Civil Service will be badly affected?

Mr. Millan: I agree with my hon. Friend. I had intended to make that point later in my speech. The cuts in public expenditure, whether in the Civil Service or elsewhere, are now worsening seriously the general unemployment position, not least among school leavers and youngsters generally. Particular groups of school leavers—especially those with the least qualifications and the ethnic minorities—will be badly hit.
Some interesting statistics given in answer to a recent question by one of my hon. Friends show that, whereas the general unemployment in the past year had risen by 16 per cent., the increase in the, number of unemployed among ethnic minority workers had risen by no less than 26 per cent. As well as those in black communities, disadvantages are being suffered by the disabled and by other disadvantaged groups in the community.
No doubt the Minister, when he replies, will tell us that unemployment increased under the previous Labour Administration. I acknowledge and regret that fact. It increased substantially. But the position today is much worse than anything which obtained under the Labour Government. I remind the House that in the last 18 months of the Labour Government unemployment was reducing gradually—too slowly, in my view—and that that trend continued after the election until September of last year, when the Conservative Government's policies began to bite. The trend was reversed, and unemployment began to rise again—first of all, slowly, but now at an accelerating pace.
The problem is already on a more serious and larger scale than any thing under the Labour Government. I shall come to forecasts in a moment, but I believe that the unemployment figures will become very much worse before they get better. More important, for the first time in Britain since the war the Government have deliberately abandoned full employment as a policy. That is what the Government have done over the past year.
We can take our pick from a variety of forecasts from independent bodies of all sorts—some with considerable repu

tations for accurate forecasting, and some with less considerable reputations. For example, there are the London Business School, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Independent Treasury Economic Model and many more. Every outside body estimates that over the next two or three years unemployment will rise considerably. Only a month ago talk of 2 million unemployed by the beginning of next year was pooh-poohed by the Government, who said that it would not happen and that it was scare talk. Now the Government do not even bother to deny that, even on their figures, unemployment, will be more than 2 million by the beginning of next year. If they deny that, I hope that they will say so this afternoon and give chapter and verse for their denial. The Government know that unemployment will be more than 2 million, at the very least, by the beginning of next year. The latest forecast from ITEM shows that by 1983 unemployment in Britain will be no less than 3 million. That forecast was buttressed by many substantial and convincing arguments.
The Prime Minister, when answering questions yesterday, talked about a short-term problem and a short-term increase in the figures. We are entitled to ask how long is short-term. What do the Government mean by short-term unemployment problems? No outside forecast predicts anything other than that these serious unemployment figures will continue for at least two or three years, and that unless there are changes in Government policy they will continue for longer than that. It does not give any comfort to the unemployed youngsters to be told that it is simply a short-term unemployment problem when it is likely to continue for two or three years or a good deal longer than that. If that is not the position, perhaps the Minister will tell us the definition of short-term. Is it six months, one year, two years, three years or five years? We are entitled to know the Government definition of short-term.
What is the Government's forecast of unemployment? Will we be told that today? When will the figures begin to improve? At what point will they be so unacceptable—even to this Government—that there will be a change of policy? The House is entitled to have those questions answered by the Minister today.

Mr. John Gorst: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair, and he was fair when he referred to the decline in unemployment after the general election. Will he bear in mind that, while the Manpower Services Commission was preparing its forecast for 1981 it was writing in a probable figure of 1·9 million? That must have been based not upon present Government policies but upon the results of the previous Labour Administration.

Mr. Millan: I shall come to the Manpower Services Commission review, published only a month ago, later in my speech. It makes interesting reading. It is incredibly damaging to the Government's policies.
We should have some answers to those questions. I do not expect to get answers from the Secretary of State for Scotland, as he never answers any questions by hon. Members from Scottish constituencies. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not give any forecasts because he does not believe in them. With the sort of forecasts being published at present, I can understand why he does not want to believe in them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not listen to anyone. He does not listen to advice from outside or anywhere else. We had plenty of experience of the Chancellor in another incarnation on the Industrial Relations Act. We know the havoc that he created in industrial relations by not listening to advice. Now he is being allowed to create even greater havoc and disruption in a wider area of economic policy.
The Secretary of State for Industry does not believe the unemployment figures. He thinks that they are a myth and that people are not unemployed at all. He ought to tell that to the extra 150,000 who have joined the dole queues in the last month.
The Secretary of State for Employment used to be very scathing about the unemployment figures under the Labour Government, but he is now presiding over the biggest unemployment disaster since the 1930s, and he knows that it will get worse. If he had any conscience, he would resign from this Government, because we are told that he does not believe in their policies. I would respect

him for that at least. However, that is what he is presiding over at the moment.
Suppose we get an improvement.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Millan: What will be left of our industry when the upturn comes, if it ever comes? What will be left of our manufacturing industry? The costs of unemployment are horrific in terms of our economy. That point hardly needs underlining.
There used to be a comfortable little theory that if only one went downhill a bit, that put one in a better position for taking off again—the springboard theory of unemployment or decline. It was all just a question of shaking out unproductive elements in the economy. I never believed those theories, and I certainly do not believe them now. This is far more than a shake-out and a decline for a subsequent take-off. In terms of productivity, what is happening now is absolutely disastrous. The conditions in which we get productivity improvements are certainly not conditions in which we have an accelerating decline in employment and an accelerating increase in unemployment. The consequences for our industry, to which I shall come in more detail later, are absolutely disastrous.
There are other consequences as well. There is the consequence for public expenditure. One of the Government's main aims is to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. But unemployment benefit is now adding massively to the PSBR and is therefore encouraging the Government, in the perversity of their monetary policies, to cut back even further, causing more unemployment, whether in the Civil Service or elsewhere, and again adding to the vicious circle of increased public expenditure.
Apart from that, there is the effect on the individuals who are now being put on the dole. I think that it is true to say that all of us on both sides of the House have in recent years been too complacent about the effect of unemployment on the individual. But there is now a feeling of bitterness and despair among many of our unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, which can be disastrous for the social health of this country. I do not normally suggest that high rates of unemployment will inevitably lead to social


unrest, but I believe that in certain sections of the community we are beginning to see such signs. The quickest and most decisive way of adding to that bitterness is what the Government are doing about unemployment benefit this year.
We know that many Conservative Members think that a large percentage of the unemployed are scroungers. We have had another 150,000 scroungers added to the total in the last month. What the Government are doing on unemployment benefit reflects that situation. In the current year they are deliberately cutting the real value of unemployment benefit. That has not happened since 1930. The increase of 11½ per cent. this year compared with an inflation rate of 22 per cent. is a deliberate attack on the living standards of the unemployed. I believe that as the effects of that attack on their living standards becomes evident during the winter months, it will lead to a considerable increase in anger and bitterness.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said on this point. He will recall that during the period 1976–77, under the Labour Government, there was a substantial fall in the real earning power of those in employment at a time when he might be entitled to say that the compensation of those who were out of employment was sustained against the going rate of inflation. Is he saying that it is preferable that the remuneration of those in employment should fall behind the compensation of those who are out of employment?

Mr. Millan: I am saying that if there are savings to be made, they should not be made at the expense of those least able to defend themselves. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not only unemployment benefit that is being cut. Sickness benefit is being cut by the Government in November this year.
Why are we in this parlous condition? We are now getting the excuse of world conditions. But, because of North sea oil, we are in an almost uniquely advantageous position compared with our industrial competitors in the Western world to deal with the difficult world economic situation. Yet, despite that, we are already doing worse than the rest of them, and we shall do worse still.
The reason why we are in this position is the Government's monetary policy. I repeat, they are squeezing out inflation by reducing output and employment. Yet, ironically, what is the Government's record on inflation? They inherited an 8 per cent. rate and pushed it up to 22 per cent. within a year, mostly by Government-induced inflation by increasing VAT, gas and electricity prices, imposing higher rents on council house tenants and cheating the local authorities out of the moneys to which they were entitled, thereby encouraging the highest rate increases that we have had for many years. These have been the direct inflationary consequences of the Government's policy.
Interest rates—another aspect of the Government's monetary policy—are adding to inflation and, incidentally, like the increased costs of unemployment benefit, adding substantially to the public sector borrowing requirement.
The effect of this policy is that sterling, in terms of our industrial strength, particularly because of interest rates and the consequences of North Sea oil, is overvalued against the currencies of our main industrial competitors. With that disastrous combination for our manufacturing industry, and particularly for our exporters, it is no wonder that we are now facing ruinous consequences in terms of reduced output and employment.
It is no use the Government attempting, as they are now doing, to blame it all on wages. The Government were elected on the basis that we did not need an incomes policy; that all we needed were a few simple monetary mechanisms and everything else—wages, incomes and the rest—would work out simply and satisfactorily. The Government were elected after a period in which, as the then Opposition, they had obstructed any attempt by the Labour Government to get a genuine understanding about wages and incomes.
The Government were elected on the basis that they did not want to talk to the TUC. They snubbed the TUC. They did not want to co-operate with the TUC or individual trade unions. If the Government want understandings on wages, incomes or anything else, they will have to be willing to discuss with the TUC and the unions generally a good deal more than wages. They will have to discuss the whole management of the economy. If,


with the kind of policies that they are carrying out at the moment, they expect to get co-operation from the trade unions, they are suffering from a grand delusion.
The effect of Government policy on industry is devastating. The output figures are already going down disastrously. The redundancy figures announced yesterday by the Department of Employment show an increase of 100 per cent. over last year. The Secretary of State for Employment might care to note that I asked for the figures in a parliamentary question on Monday and received a temporising answer. The figures were issued to the press yesterday in a verbal briefing by the Department of Employment. I am grateful for them because they show that in the first five months of this year redundancies totalled 150,000 compared with only 67,000 in the same period last year. There are now so many closures that they hardly rate a mention in the newspapers.
As the Financial Times said the other day, there is a "rising tide of bankruptcies". The figures show a substantial increase in bankruptcies over the last year. Significantly, there are many bankruptcies in manufacturing industry. On the last occasion that there were bankruptcies, they took place mainly in the property market. Now they are occuring in the manufacturing sector. I have no doubt that it will be a great comfort to the heads of small firms who voted Conservative at the last election that among the bankruptcies are the small firms which the Government said they would protect under their new policies. There is no way of protecting small firms under present policies. They are suffering even more than the rest of the economy.
In the experience of my hon. Friends, there is a mood of despair in industry. The newspapers are now talking openly of a slump. They are using not the word "recession" but the more accurate word "slump". That mood of despair has become deeper and gloomier in the last few months.
Even the CBI, which has kept up a facade of support for Government policy, is extremely worried about what is happening. Its chairman recently attended a meeting of the Conservative Back Bench industry group. He said that for

many members the problem was one of short-term survival. Government Members know that industry is in a mood of despair.
The chairman of the CBI in Scotland, Mr. Nickson, said the other day:
Interest rates have to come down by a significant amount at the earliest opportunity. We want the Government to err on the side of sooner rather than later.
The chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, Mr. Duthie, who was appointed by the present Secretary of State for Scotland, hit out at Tory policy the other day. He said:
The time has come to relax the Governments monetary policies. We have gone far enough down that road.
Opposition Members will say "Hear, hear" to that.
Mr. Balfour, the managing director of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and chairman of the Scottish Council, said the other day that there must be a change in Government policy. Lord Weir, whose company, Weir's of Cathcart, is one of the best engineering companies in Scotland, says that his company is suffering from over-valued sterling and high interest rates. It has recently had to lay off substantial numbers of workers. Lord Weir was one of the foremost supporters of the Government at the last election. However, he is calling for a halt to and change in Government policy.
The rot among Government supporters has gone so far that even The Sun newspaper, under its newly knighted editor, Sir Albert Lamb, carried a special survey called "Britain in the Dole-drums." I noticed a slight change in mood today. Perhaps Sir Albert had one of his famous chats with the Prime Minister yesterday.
A much more cheerful article appears in The Sun today. It was called
The School Leavers' Jobs Guide.
It gives the following advice to young people:
don't just sit there and moan about it. Do something, even if it is only a short-term measure. There are plenty of temporary jobs for a bright teenager. They are fun, get you out and about, and will give your confidence a boost.
That was followed by many helpful suggestions, all, of course, full of fun. One example was entitled:
Be Busy on the Beach.


It reads:
You do like to be beside the seaside? Why not become a deckchair attendant or litter collector? Or you could help with the donkey rides—it doesn't pay a fortune but it gives a lot of pleasure.
That is from the Prime Minister's favourite newspaper. Now we know the prescription for putting British industry back on its feet—helping with the donkey rides.
We need urgent action on a wide front and on a number of particular issues. First, the Government must abandon their obsession with monetary policy and with artificial figures for PSBR. There is an overwhelming case for an immediate reduction in interest rates. That by itself would have a significant effect on sterling and would help to make our industry more competitive.
If the Government wanted to reduce inflationary pressure, they could follow the advice that the Leader of the Opposition gave yesterday about reversing the increase in VAT and the Government-directed increase in gas prices. There are a number of other areas in which the Government, by their own actions, can reverse some of the disastrous inflationary aspects in the economy which result from their policies.
Whatever is done now in terms of reversing policies, unemployment will become worse and worse over at least the next year and probably for considerably longer. Every day's delay makes the situation worse and means that the slump will continue for even longer.
A number of other actions should be taken. The Government should abandon their farcical policy of non-intervention in industry. It is not even non-interventionist, as we saw during the steel dispute and, more recently, during the farcical Ferranti episode, when jobs were prejudiced because of the Government's doctrinaire policy.
There must be a loosening of the criteria for section 7 and section 8 assistance instead of the tightening up by the Government in the last year. Industries such as the textile industry require urgent action, not in weeks or months, but now. That action is already overdue. The Government must remove the shackles from the National Enterprise Board and reverse the unbelievable cuts in the Scottish Development Agency budget. One of the first things that the Government did was

to cut expenditure on one of the most hopeful aspects of Scottish industry. The same happened to the Welsh Development Agency. The agencies need more power and money, not less.
There must be a reversal of last July's regional policy cuts. The areas that will suffer most as employment levels deteriorate further are those with traditionally high unemployment, yet last year the Government cut regional aid. The sum of £45 million out of £150 million in Scotland was cut in order to save money and to reduce the impact on the PSBR.
There must be a reversal of public expenditure policies. The Civil Service was mentioned earlier, but that is only one example. Government cuts in public expenditure are adding directly and inevitably to the unemployment figures. There was a myth that local authority expenditure could be cut, leaving the capital programme intact and that everything could be done on the revenue programme. That is utter nonsense. It has been proved to be so with the housing programme. That is to be cut in the next few years by nearly 50 per cent. The effect on the construction industry will be disastrous. That industry contributed a lot of money to the Tory Party coffers at the last general election.
The pay-off for the construction industry is the worst prospect since the end of the war. That is only one of the industries that is suffering from cuts in public expenditure.
There should also be an increase in the budget of the Manpower Services Commission. It is hardly credible that the Government should cut its budget at a time of such high unemployment. The planned expenditure for 1979–80 has been cut by £114 million. Planned expenditure for the current year has been cut by £140 million, and for 1983–84 the cuts may total as much as £207 million. The Manpower Services Commission recently published the "Manpower Review 1980". It states:
We will be unable to meet the demands on some of our major services at a level we consider necessary.
Its budgets have been cut and its manpower has been cut in the interests of doctrinaire monetarist policies. The work of the Manpower Services Commission should be extended. Many of its


programmes, such as STEP, have been cut.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Conservative Members recognise that the Manpower Services Commission has an important role to play in alleviating some of the problems. However, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in paragraph 117 the Manpower Services Commission states that the generation of permanent new jobs is outside the power of the commission?

Mr. Millan: I agree. Far from generating new jobs, the Government have increased unemployment. As a result, we must look to the Manpower Services Commission to provide, in many cases, palliatives. If changes are not made in the economy, the Manpower Services Commission will require an increased budget to do the job that the Government should be doing.
The Secretary of State for Employment is boastful and confident about the youth opportunities programme. Indeed, it is mentioned in the Government's amendment. He is very proud that the Government have maintained the number of places. If I were him, I would not be so complacent. We need many more places to deal with increasing youth unemployment. Youth unemployment will inevitably rise over the next two or three years.
The Manpower Services Commission's review is interesting. Although the number of places have been maintained, page 28 shows that provision in later years will represent a significant cut in the youth opportunities programme. The figures are given in the commission's report for 1980. Althought at present there is provision for 100,000 to 105,000 places, that number will be cut to 80,000 or 85,000. Those cuts in the programme are a direct result of the cuts in the budget of the MSC.
If the Secretary of State for unemployment is so anxious about the youth opportunities programme, he should give a simple pledge. Perhaps he will pledge that the number of cases provided under the youth opportunities programme will be considerably increased every year until they reach a level that the Manpower Services Commission recognises as adequate to deal with the increasingly seri

ous problem of youth unemployment That would be a simple pledge. I hope that a Minister will give it.
The Government made an incredible decision, in their announcement on 14 February, to cut back the job release scheme. That scheme takes the elderly out of employment on the ground that their jobs will be filled by those who are on the unemployment register. Such a scheme represents a major contribution to solving the problems of the long-term unemployed and of young school leavers. It is vital that we should use whatever measures are necessary to tackle the youth unemployment. The job release scheme gave favourable terms to those who retired. Despite that, the Secretary of State for Employment has decided to cut it. The eligible age for males is being cut from 62 years to 64 years. As a result, perhaps 40,000 people will remain on the unemployment register.
When he made that statement, the Secretary of State said that the job release scheme was the most cost-effective scheme that we had. If so, why in heaven's name is the programme being cut? The programme could make a major contribution towards solving youth unemployment. Apart from the major policy changes that we seek, we hope that we shall be given some encouragement to believe that the job release scheme will at least be reconstituted to the scheme that the Government inherited from the Labour Government.
At the last election, the electorate was promised tax cuts and cuts in inflation. The Conservative manifesto and Conservative candidates said that there was something for everyone. The electorate is now witnessing the reality of Tory policy. The reality is completely different from the land of unequalled opportunities that the Tory Party promised at the last general election. The tax cuts have gone sour, because they have been eaten up by increasing inflation. The Government cannot afford to make further significant tax cuts unless it is to those who earn salaries of £20,000 or £25,000 a year. If one does not earn such a salary, one will stand to lose more as a result of the general increase in indirect taxation than might have been gained from the reduction in direct taxation that was announced in the Chancellor's Budget.


Instead, we are faced by rip-roaring inflation, and massive and increasing unemployment.
The message to the Government is simple. Their policies have failed, and the outlook is grim if they continue with such policies. That is why we call upon the Government to abandon their disastrous policies before they do irreversible damage to British industry and to the economy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, to leave out from "That to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'this House shares the concern at the rise in unemployment but recognises that in the face of many years of industrial weakness and the development of a world recession there is no quick solution; approves the actions of Her Majesty's Government in concentrating assistance in the area of greatest need and in increasing the size of the youth opportunities programme; confirms its support for the present policies designed to reduce inflation and urges all concerned to minimise unemployment by moderating the level of wage settlements.'.
The House will share the concern that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has expressed about the unemployment figures. The House will also welcome the opportunity to debate these problems, their causes, what the Government are doing and what can be done to help. The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely appropriate person to open the debate. He has an extensive knowledge of this subject. He is particularly appropriate, because of his record when he was in office. Indeed, he seemed to be suffering from a certain degree of amnesia today. I therefore wish to make a few comments that I hope will put the record straight.
The right hon. Gentleman took the Government to task—and me as well—time and again for our insistence upon the priority of squeezing inflation from the system. I do not know whether he thinks that that is no longer a priority, or whether he is against the aim of squeezing inflation from the system. I remind him that the phrase "squeezing inflation from the system" is not mine, nor was it

originally the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It originated from the Leader of the Opposition, who said on 25 January 1977:
As long as we are trying to squeeze inflation out of the economy, this is unfortunately one of the consequences that we must face".—[Official Report, 25 January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 1169.]
One of the consequences to which he was referring was unemployment.
The right hon. Member for Craigton knows all about this. If we are talking about the first year of a Government in office, he knows about it because he was a member of the Government who came to office in 1974. He knows that the increase in unemployment in that year was greater than the increase in the past year. Between May 1974 and May 1975 there was an increase of 23·9 per cent. in Scotland compared with an increase between May 1979 and May 1980 of 18·7 per cent. The increase in the whole of Great Britain was 51·9 per cent. in 1974–75, and 16·4 per cent. in 1979–80. I quote these figures not because I do not take seriously the question of unemployment but because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks would have carried a great deal more weight if he had acknowledged those facts more openly.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the June unemployment figures. I share his concern about them. But I remind him of his words in the House on 4 July 1977, when he said:
The Government are very concerned about the present level of unemployment. I have never disguised my view that it is unacceptably high. The figure for the month of June, in particular, was disappointing. It was very much affected by the influx of summer school leavers, who leave school rather earlier in Scotland than they used to do. But the figures would have been very much worse had it not been for the special measures that the Government have introduced to alleviate the worst experiences of those—particularly young people—who are unable to get jobs in the present difficult time."—[Official Report, 4 July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 900.]
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would recall those words.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Stop playing Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Mr. Younger: A few minutes ago the right hon. Gentleman poured scorn on the idea that foreign comparisons had any relevance. I remind him again of


his words in a Scottish Estimates debate on 27 June 1978, when he said:
I will not spend any time dealing with the general international background but it is, nevertheless, true that the general state of world trade and lack of world recovery is the most important and serious factor against which any kind of policy for economic expansion in this country has to operate."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 27 June 1978; c. 15.]
That puts the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in perspective.

Mr. David Ennals: Before the Minister finishes his series of quotations and gets on with his own speech, will he answer one question? He talks about squeezing inflation out of the system. Does he not recognise that the Labour Government squeezed inflation down, whereas his Government are squeezing it up, as well as putting up unemployment?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman should look at his figures a little more carefully. The Labour Government squeezed inflation down until 1977, when they squeezed it up in 1978–79. That is much of the source of the troubles that we have to deal with now.
The remarks of the right hon. Member for Craigton would have carried greater weight had his solutions been a little more sensible or better thought out. For a former Secretary of State and a member of the Cabinet for a number of years, the collection of solutions that he produced were mutually contradictory to a ridiculous extent. He said that we should reduce indirect taxes, cut VAT, reduce the public expenditure cuts and yet cut taxes. I do not understand the sense of that. He claimed that the changes in regional policy had been utterly disastrous, yet his own constituency was upgraded in importance and has a stronger pull than it has ever had before.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the cuts in the Scottish Development Agency's budget. Let us look at those. The actual expenditure of the SDA in 1977–78 was £41 million, in 1978–79 £52·9 million, and in 1979–80 £65 million. For the current year it is estimated at £76·7 million. If that is the scale of cuts that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, he will realise that this is a ridiculous proposition to put

forward. He knows perfectly well that the SDA underspent its budget every year under his Government, and that it has more to spend this coming year than ever before—and more in real terms. That exposes the right hon. Gentleman's figures.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of some of the subheadings of unemployment during the first year that his Government were in office? The number of school leavers increased between July 1974 and July 1975 from 6,800 to 16,000 in Scotland and from 14,400 to 55,300 in Great Britain. For young people under 20, the figure for Great Britain went up from 81,500 to 232,900 in the same period and for all unemployment, taking everyone together, the figure rose from 560,500 to 867,400.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech contained much that we shall study with interest, but it did not show either that he appreciated the extent of the failure during his five years in government, which led to many of the problems we are facing now, or that he realised that he had exposed to all the world that he and his right hon. Friends do not have the faintest idea of the policies that they would introduce if something happened and they were to return to office.
Against that background, I wish to make some comments about the situation and what should be done. Governments of both political complexions have been trying to pursue policies aimed at improving our economic performance for the whole of the past decade. It was very clear that the Labour Government did not succeed. Between June 1970 and February 1974 seasonally adjusted unemployment in Great Britain under a Conservative Government actually fell by about 2 per cent. Between March 1974 and May 1979 under a Labour Government it rose by 692,000 or 125 per cent. The economic policies that operated during the 1970s obviously did not succeed.
This was the position facing us when we took office just over a year ago. We recognised that a fundamental change of approach was necessary, and indeed any Government who took office in these circumstances and left the policies running as they were would have  guilty of gross dereliction of duty. The country and the House know that, and, in their hearts, so do Labour Members.
I wish to put unemployment in its wider context. Let me consider the impact of our economic policy on unemployment in the longer term before I turn to the specific measures to alleviate unemployment. I do not need to remind the House that the legacy of the previous Government was one of several years of extremely low output. In manufacturing industry, there was a fall in output throughout the Labour Government's period of office averaging 0·7 per cent. a year. Unemployment more than doubled and unit labour costs increased considerably.
We were left with a planned expansion in public expenditure amounting in real terms to about 2 per cent. per annum, which was unsupported by any corresponding increasing in production or any obvious means to pay for it. Moreover, we were handed a number of nasty post-dated cheques in the shape of public sector pay promises and the Clegg Commission. This is familiar ground, but I make no apology for going over it again.
Our industrial base, particularly our traditional industries, shrunk over those years. In shipbuilding and steel, production halved between 1965 and 1979. Over the same period, the production of cars dropped by 38 per cent., yet our international competitors increased their output over the same time scale—France by 129 per cent., Germany by 44 per cent., and Japan by a staggering 786 per cent. It is not difficult to quote other examples. Of course, it is also possible to quote good examples in this country.
However, the underlying trend cannot be doubted. Our comparative position as a trading nation in the competitive world market has fallen over a number of years. In 1960, the United Kingdom's share of manufactured exports from the main manufacturing countries was 15·5 per cent. compared with 9·5 per cent. in 1979. In 1960 the United Kingdom ranked eighth in the league of gross domestic product per head. By 1978 we had fallen to seventeenth.
Of course, we have to recognise that the economic picture is not all black. Unemployment has increased markedly over the past decade, but the general level of employment has remained relatively stable. In June 1970, there were 22·47 million people in employment in the United Kingdom. In June 1979 the

figure was 22·83 million, a slight increase.
Many of the new jobs created in this country over the past decade have not been such as to create employment for those who came out of declining manufacturing industries. Without a substantial improvement in economic performance, we shall find it impossible to create jobs for our increasing population of working people.
Increases in unemployment are not restricted to the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Craigton has been fond of making that point in the past. Since 1970, the major OECD countries have all experienced a rise in their unemployment levels and, while in more recent months unemployment in Japan and West Germany has been falling, countries such as France, Canada and the United States have, like the United Kingdom, experienced increases.
Unemployment in the EEC as a whole has been rising since September. In the first quarter of this year, the United Kingdom's estimated unemployment rate, at 6·1 per cent., was only fractionally ahead of that in the United States at 6 per cent., equal to that in France and behind the rates of Canada, where it is 7·4 per cent., and Italy, where it is 7·9 per cent.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be making an assessment of unemployment. The debate is supposed to be about youth unemployment. Will he address himself to the fact that youth unemployment in this country has risen enormously and that the proportion of unemployed under the age of 20 has virtually doubled in the past 10 to 15 years? Will he tell us how we can improve opportunities when interest rates at their present levels are deterring the need to invest which underlies the international comparison that he has made?

Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about youth employment. I am not trying to omit that subject; and I shall be coming to it. However, I suggest that he reads the Opposition motion, because it deals with general unemployment as well as youth unemployment. I am working within the motion, as I am sure the House wishes me to do.
The United Kingdom is not the only country experiencing a slow-down in the rate of economic activity, and any discussion of our situation must take account of developments elsewhere. In the OECD area as a whole, GDP growth is expected to be considerably less than half the average of the 10 years up to 1978. The outlook is only slightly better for industrial production, and world trade is expected to slow considerably this year after a fairly buoyant outturn in 1979.
The gloomy outlook for the industrial world reflects the adjustment of major economies to the deflating impact of oil price increases, and it makes the solution of our problems much more difficult. I mention those points in order to demonstrate that the problem is deep-seated and has built up over many years. Anyone who ignores that is unable to address himself to the roots of solving the problem.
A solution cannot be brought about overnight and it cannot be brought about by increased public expenditure—certainly not by increased public expenditure and lower interest rates at the same time, a marvellous piece of conjuring which the right hon. Member for Craigton seemed to think he could perform. The record of the previous Administration proves that, if proof is needed. They presided over a massive increase in unemployment and laid the foundations for the problems that we are trying to deal with. They also left us with an increasing public expenditure programme which they could not afford.
Our fundamental requirement is to improve economic performance. I should like to refer briefly to our strategy for securing such an improvement, because Labour Members will doubtless make much of the difficulties that are allegedly being caused to industry and will press the case for an alternative strategy. I do not know whether we shall hear demands for a wage freeze or import controls, but I hope that their suggestions will be a title more consistent that what the right hon. Member for Craigton proposed.
The control of inflation is fundamental to our strategy, as is the restoration of conditions in which enterprise can flourish. In order to secure that, we are committed to a steady reduction in the growth of money supply. The surest way

to stop money from falling in value is to restrict the amount of it that is available. Hence, the medium-term financial strategy provides for a year-by-year fall in the rate of growth of the money supply to about 6 per cent. a year by 1983–84.
The Opposition say that they want low interest rates. We all aspire to that. But their suggested policies are contradictory. The higher public sector expenditure that they seek would be likely to lead to still higher interest rates.
We recognise that current interest rate levels are creating problems for industry's investment plans and financial position. For that reason, we attach a high priority to achieving our monetary objectives as quickly as possible. Lower interest rates will come as soon as possible, although the timing is a matter for the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only way to attain that aim is to reduce the public sector's demands for finance.
Unless we are to increase taxation—and I was not certain whether the right hon. Member for Craigton wanted that, though he wanted a reduction in VAT—it is essential that we reduce public expenditure. Everyone, including the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), knows that that is true. Labour Members would do better to acknowledge that fact.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman says that everyone acknowledges that public expenditure needs to be reduced, but is he not aware that the Manpower Services Commission agreed unanimously today to write to the Secretary of State for Employment and resist further cuts in its budget which would lead to a reduction by one quarter in the number of its staff who service the unemployed? The MSC says that that is unacceptable and that it will severely resist such a move. What is the right hon. Gentleman's answer to that?

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend will look forward to receiving the letter. I have not seen it. If my right hon. Friend were to agree to the MSC's request, the money would have to be found from somewhere else—probably a programme that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is keen on.
Only if we reduce public expenditure and get it in the right balance can the wealth-creating enterprise sector of the economy flourish and create more secure employment and increasing opportunities for our young people. That is why firm steps have been taken on this matter.
Higher interest rates and North Sea oil have led to a strong currency, with consequences for the competitiveness of our exports, but since the key element in the strategy must be to bring down inflation, an attempt by the Government to bring down the exchange rate artificially would succeed, if it succeeded at all, at the cost of weakening monetary control generally. The rate is set by market forces. Intervention beyond normal smoothing operations would be mistaken.
Two specific measures, sometimes suggested by Opposition Members, are controls on wages and controls on imports. Wage control policies, of which we have ample evidence, simply do not work. They perpetuate anomalies. They encourage skill shortages. They lead to inflexibilities in the labour market, and cause a massive explosion in wages when, inevitably, they have to come to an end. The Government's general role in pay matters must, therefore, be to set the financial framework and not to intervene in detail in individual pay negotiations.
Firms and unions must pay close attention to the specific circumstances of the company and industry in which they work, taking fully into account the pressure of competition, both foreign and domestic. Failure to do this results only in falling profits, lack of investment and fewer jobs. Nothing is to be gained by arguing over increases well above what the company or the industry can afford. Increases are not an automatic right. They have to be earned by higher output and higher productivity. Otherwise we lose competitiveness and industry will inevitably have to contract, losing jobs at an ever increasing rate. In short, pay negotiations must be pitched at a realistic level for the circumstances of the industry concerned.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several examples have been given in the House in recent days of firms which have met all the criteria of low wages, in

creased productivity, and even working on the day of action, but which have now gone to the wall? How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that the policy is working?

Mr. Younger: One would have to look at the individual circumstances. If the firm concerned has been unable to produce the goods that its customers want, at the right time, and at the right price, it probably will have had difficulty. That is what everyone has to realise.

Mr. Skinner: What is the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the argument, often put, that for every £1 cut from the public sector, roughly 75 per cent. is thereby cut from the private sector because it acts as the supplier? Is not that the reason why Ladbroke's, not the greatest of wealth creators, can announce a 71 per cent. increase in profits, a firm called Pleasurama can increase dividends by 141 per cent., and the big four banks can make £1,500 million in their last accounts and £1,000 million, so I am told, in the first half year, to be announced shortly? Is that not the real reason why the CBI and others have been trotting along to Downing Street and Government Departments saying "We understand the theory, we are with you all the way, but for goodness sake let's get some unemployment back in the system".

Mr. Younger: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman back. The burden of his song is that we should be spending our way out of trouble by more public expenditure. That was specifically rejected by the Leader of the Opposition in a famous speech at a Labour Party conference some time ago.

Mr. Skinner: I am not worried about what he said.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must know that this option is not open.
It is also suggested that import controls are a panacea to solving our problem. There might be short-term benefits for some industries, but this would be at the expense of the economy as a whole. I am sure that many Opposition Members share the Government's profound belief that, in the longer term, import controls would do us in Britain much more harm than good. We are far


more exposed to international competition than the countries against which we would require to erect barriers. The United Kingdom exports 31 per cent. of the GDP by contrast with only 13 per cent. for Japan and 8 per cent. for the United States. The retaliation which the introduction of import controls would provoke would inevitably leave us much worse off in the longer term, with appalling consequences in the longer term for employment.
Our economic and industrial policies are designed to secure the regeneration of the country's industrial base, necessary to create new, secure and lasting jobs. However, this regeneration simply cannot happen overnight, and the Government recognise that we have a responsibility in the short term to those who find themselves unemployed, either through redundancy or through lack of job opportunity.
I should therefore like to turn to the specific measures that we are taking to alleviate the impact of unemployment, particularly among the young, to improve the training system to meet industry's needs to make it easier for individuals to find employment appropriate to their aptitudes and interests, and to encourage the creation of jobs in areas particularly hard hit by unemployment.
We have made available increased provision to the Manpower Services Commission for the youth opportunities programme. We have allowed for increased provision for the youth opportunities programme in 1980–81 of 50,000 throughout the United Kingdom, of which 6,500 are in Scotland. The total number of entrants for YOP will be 250,000 in the United Kingdom and 37,000 in Scotland where the MSC estimates that it will fill 15,350 places in 1980–81 compared with 11,000 in 1979–80.
The MSC should, therefore, be in a position—this answers the specific question of the right hon. Member for Craigton—to fulfil its commitment to find a place on the YOP for any school leaver who remains unemployed the following Easter or for any young person unemployed for more than 12 months. That is the undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman said would be fulfilled in his time. We intend to carry it through this year.

Mr. Millan: I am not simply talking about this year. I am talking about future years. What is the commitment?

Mr. Younger: In future years, naturally we hope to do the same. The right hon. Gentleman has the assurance for which he asked. I hope that he will acknowledge the fact.

Mr. Millan: I did not ask for that assurance.

Mr. Younger: The YOP is not a palliative to reduce the unemployment figures.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman is answering a question that I did not ask. I did not ask about the current year. I acknowledge that the figures had been maintained. I stated that the MSC budget will inevitably involve a decline in the numbers over subsequent years unless more money is made available. Will more money be made available to maintain the programme?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. We have not maintained the programme. We have increased the programme. He might be man enough to admit it.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows—it was the same in his case—these undertakings are not given in advance, many years ahead. He can take our intention this year as an earnest of our determination to keep up standards in this sphere. The experience gained on the programme of work experience and training is of considerable benefit to participants in finding employment later. YOP combines work experience and study of life and social skills. The evidence of numbers leaving courses and subsequently finding employment bears witness to the effectiveness of the scheme.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I prefer to press on with my speech. I shall take too long if I give way.
Surveys have shown that about 70 per cent. of young people participating in work experience schemes have found permanent employment immediately thereafter. The local authority careers service has an important role to play in alleviating the difficulties experienced by


young people. The service has stepped up its effort to search out job vacancies for young people and to find opportunities in the youth opportunities programme for those unable to find permanent employment.

Mr. Heffer: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's issue of the Liverpool Daily Post which, dealing with the very service about which he is talking, points to seven jobs available for 4,700 unemployed youngsters? There is a total of over 10,000 unemployed youngsters in the area. What plans do the Government possess to deal with that tragic problem?

Mr. Younger: My reading of the Liverpool Daily Post is an absolute essential in my life, I must admit. This scheme is designed to help precisely the situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The fact that there is a large problem to be dealt with is what we are discussing. There is a large problem to be dealt with all over the country, not merely in Liverpool. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give his support to the programme that is trying to help young people.

Mr. Millan: This debate is about youth unemployment. I hope that Conservative Members are concerned about that. I want an answer to the question that I put to the Secretary of State. If one looks at the MSC "Manpower Review" published this month and at the figures for subsequent years for the youth opportunities programme, one finds that the budget for this year is £150 million but that next year it drops to £136 million, despite the fact that next year youth unemployment will be even greater than it is in the current year. Will these budgets be increased or not? It is a simple question. What is the answer?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has to look at the figures a bit more carefully than that. That is all based on his assumptions of what will happen next year in the first place. In the second place, if he is looking into the future, he must consider the future position about the reduction in the number of school leavers which will arise when the number of people coming on to the market is reduced. [Interruption.] The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that, when he has had the answer to

one question, he cannot take it. What he has to do is to invent a new question. If I give him another 10 answers to this question, he will just invent a new one after that. He would carry much more conviction in the House if he would admit it when he is given an answer to a question and allow people to carry on with their speeches. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) must not read a newspaper in the Chamber.

Mr. Heffer: I am not reading a newspaper, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am looking at further evidence in relation to this question. Here is the evidence.

Mr. Younger: The attractions of the Liverpool Daily Post must be even greater than I thought they were.

Mr. Heffer: Just look at it!

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I may continue on the question of young people who are unemployed.
For particularly disadvantaged young people, community industry is designed to provide work experience to enable them to find permanent jobs. The programme was expanded in 1979–80 to provide 6,000 filled places, and we have accepted the need to maintain it at this size for 1980–81.
Provision for the special temporary employment programme, which is aimed at those aged 19 to 24 who have been unemployed for at least six months and older people who have been unemployed for at least a year, is being maintained at 12,000 to 14,000 places. We have concentrated the programme on special development areas, development areas and designated inner urban areas, where the problems are more acute.
I turn to training. An effective training system is essential if we are to grasp the industrial opportunities open to us and if we are to ensure that individuals make the most of their aptitudes and talents. The MSC works in close cooperation with the various industrial training boards in areas of common interest to ensure that proper and adequate provision is made available. As hon. Members known, the MSC is currently reviewing the national training system in


order to assess the effectiveness of existing arrangements and to seek improvements wherever possible. We expect to receive its report in July.
We are also considering the proposals outlined in the previous Government's discussion paper "A Better Start in Working Life", which put forward ideas for improving young people's awareness of employment opportunities and requirements.

Mr. Heffer: A sick joke.

Mr. Younger: Apprenticeships have traditionally provided many opportunities for school leavers, and in periods of economic recession firms often tend to cut back on apprentice recruitment. This creates problems not only for young people but also for industry when faced with shortages of necessary skills later on. We need, therefore, to keep up the level of training both for young people who are embarking on their careers and for those who need to channel their efforts in new directions. The MSC and the industrial training boards offer assistance to this end. There is, however, nothing to be gained from making provision for courses which will be under occupied and which do not provide the skills which industry will require.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I may just finish this passage.
Accordingly, the number of places on the training opportunities programme has been somewhat reduced—

An Hon. Member: From 130,000.

Mr. Giles Radice: Shame.

Mr. Harold Walker: From 99,000 in 1978.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I think that it would be better for him if he allowed me to make my speech and then made his criticisms later.
The number of places in the training opportunities programme has been reduced from 70,000—

Mr. Harold Walker: 99,000 in 1978.

Mr. Younger: —to 60,000 in the United Kingdom—from 9,000 to 7,500 in Scotland—in order to concentrate resources more effectively.
The MSC is endeavouring to ensure that specially disadvantaged groups will be protected from this reduction. The decision to rationalise the skillcentre network also reflects our desire to concentrate resources to bring training provision into line with industry's requirements and to use the resources available to us as effectively as possible.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate that the Government are deeply aware of the problems that unemployment causes and of the impact of unemployment on those who cannot find work, particularly the young. An unemployed person's morale and his social and financial standing are all greatly affected. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to draw attention to this as a problem now, as it was a problem when he was in government. I hope that I have demonstrated, at least to the House, that we are conscious of the need to alleviate the impact of unemployment in the short term, and that we are taking steps to do so.
But Governments, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said, cannot spend their way out of unemployment. No Government should take short-term measures which weaken the chance of longer-term recovery upon which our future prosperity crucially depends. For too long we in this country have bolstered up industries and firms which are past redemption and have implemented ill-thought-out palliatives which have reduced confidence in the economy and weakened our economic performance. For too long we have paid ourselves more than we can afford, and indulged in industrial disputes and restrictive practices whose effect in the longer term is to destroy jobs and reduce our standard of living. For too long we have penalised initiative and enterprise and expanded the non-productive sectors of the economy at the expense of the creators of wealth. The effects of this selfindulgence are plain to see. It was


imperative to adopt a new course, and to concentrate our resources and efforts on providing the climate for competitive industry to flourish.
That we have done. We have taken firm steps to curb inflation through control of the money supply. We have made a start on redeeming four pledges to industry: to reduce Government spending and give industry room to breathe; to cut away the thicket of Government controls and give the market a chance to work; to redress the balance of power in labour relations; and to encourage and reward enterprise. We have never pretended that this could be done quickly or that there were instant solutions. It is not possible to produce instant solutions after years and years of decline. But we have placed the economy firmly on the path to recovery. Our policies are designed to create that fundamental improvement in our economic performance without which no solution to the problems of unemployment will be found. To succeed, this will need cooperation from a large number of people. Even if Opposition Members laugh and sneer at these difficult problems, we know perfectly well—

Mr. Ennals: Look behind you.

Mr. Younger: —that people in general wish these problems to be solved and that they will support a Government who have the guts to set their hands to doing it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the first Back-Bench speaker, perhaps I may say that in this important debate very many right hon. and hon. Members wish to make a contribution. Mr. Speaker has asked me to say that he will seek to balance the debate by calling Members from regions of the country, but brief speeches will be very helpful and, I think, generally welcomed by the House.

Mr. John Golding: I have often been puzzled as to why Labour did so much better in Scotland than in England at the last general election, but after listening to the Secretary of State, I understand why that was so.
I congratulate the Opposition Whips on exposing the Secretary of State to the people of Glasgow on the eve of a by

election. I am sure that they will give a massive vote of no confidence in the Government.
The youth unemployment figures are always unnecessarily high in June, July and August. I can predict a great reduction in those figures in September and October. My first point is that it is time that we got together as employers, politicians and trade unionists to try to avoid the daft situation whereby our young people leave school in May and June but cannot start work because employers do not set them on until September or October.
Our youngsters are suffering because of the system. They undergo a period of initial unemployment which is unnecessary for many of them. But, despite the drop in youth unemployment figures that we can expect in September and October, the figures will be intolerably high next year.
Whatever the effect of the expected expansion of the youth opportunities programme, one thing is certain. That is that the Manpower Services Commission has predicted a doubling in the numbers of young people who will be unemployed by next spring. The reason why it expects that increase is that it will become increasingly difficult to place youngsters from the youth opportunities programme into regular work. There will be a massive growth, not just in school leaver unemployment, but in youth unemployment generally. That is the problem we face and part of it arises as a result of the recession.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I agree with what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) says. Does he not agree that there might be a valuable role for the Manpower Services Commission and the jobcentres in trying to find part-time employment for young people during the period between July and September? It would appear that employment offices do not make any effort to find part-time jobs which so many young people could do. Would the hon. Gentlemans Select Committee consider that aspect of the problem with my hon. Friends to see whether anything can be done along those lines?

Mr. Golding: Youngsters should attend at careers services offices and possibly there is far too much pressure upon them


for them to cope with part-time employment. But the point should certainly be considered.
Employers in North Staffordshire, where, for the first time since the war, we have an unemployment level of over 6 per cent., do not talk about their problems in terms of higher wage increases. They tell me that their problems are high interest rates, the strength of the pound—particularly important in the pottery industry—and the pottery industry having to pay an artificially high price for gas which make it difficult for them to compete.
Wages claims play a part in inflation, but the Government are wrong to cite them as the only cause of inflation. Employers speak of many other factors causing inflation apart from wage claims. The Government must share responsibility for the current recession.
Youth unemployment is a special problem not only because of numbers but because of the nature of young people themselves. Many old people, when they are declared redundant, believe that they have played a very small part in the process of redundancy. They blame the politicians, the employers and the world recession. An adult who has worked hard for 20 years in the belief that he has done a good job and who is declared redundant leaves the plant with a degree of self-confidence. He blames other people.
I discovered in the Department of Employment that young people who cannot find employment quickly blame themselves and become demoralised. That is particularly the case among those youngsters who have not fared particularly well in our school system, which is often not geared to coping with the average or the below average youngster. The school system having failed them—or they having failed in the system—they quickly become demoralised when they fail to get work.
My eyes were opened one winter morning when I spoke to a youngster in the Oxfam waste centre in Huddersfield. He told me that when he was not able to find a job he did not leave home for months. When he continued to find it impossible to get work he did not speak to his mum for weeks. When the offer

of a place on the job creation programme came, he cried. When he eventually went to work, separating rags, he felt that that was the greatest thing that had ever happened to him. He had been given a sense of purpose.
The problem of youth unemployment is special because of the impact on an individual's whole being. I believe that that situation is now shared by many of the long-term unemployed who lose their self-confidence after about six months of unemployment. When they have been unemployed for 12 months one begins to detect a change in their personality. There is now a massive problem of youth unemployment and of long-term unemployment. The MSC forecast of the doubling of youth unemployment in the coming year comes with a forecast of an increase in the number of the long-term unemployed to 500,000 by 1982. That is the size of the problem and it is a big problem.
Up to now the problem has manifested itself principally among those whom I have always called the rough and tumble. Those are the people who have not done well at school, who have rough personalities, who do not dress very well and who are not eloquent. Unemployment has been pretty well concentrated among those youngsters in the past. This year we see a difference. We are now getting reports, town by town, of unemployed youngsters who possess O-levels and who have a fair bit about them. That unemployment comes about partly because of reductions in recruitment in local government, in the Civil Service and in offices generally. Employment in those sectors is declining and that decline is having a significant impact on youngsters.
There has also been a reduction in the recruitment of apprentices. Those who talk to employers and to trade union officials know that this is happening. I am sad to say that neither the Manpower Services Commission nor the Government have acted early enough this year to counteract the reduction in the recruitment of apprentices. The Government will, perhaps, act later in the year. But it will then be too late. It will be too late because the brightest and best of the youngsters wanted by employers on award schemes as apprentices will have gone into other work. Youngsters who in the past would have gone into offices will also have taken up different work.
The problem with bright youngsters this year is that they will be taking up work that is below their potential. They will be grabbing whatever work they can and employers will take the best of them. Those youngsters will be underemployed and that, in turn, will make the problem for less able young people more acute. The jobs that they would have taken in the past will not be available to them. The brighter youngsters will be in and the less able will be squeezed out.
If, later in the year, the Government make jobs available for the brighter youngsters they may find that they will not leave the jobs they have. They will say "We are not leaving now. This mister gave us a chance when we wanted it". There is a great deal of loyalty in young people towards adults who have given them that chance. The Government must look very carefully at the pattern of employment among young people to correct the deficiencies.
The problem of youth unemployment cannot be explained away by a Tweedle-dum-Tweedledee attitude, by which the political parties call each other names. Behind that there exists a genuine problem in this country, as in others, which goes beyond party policies. An element of that is that jobs for young people have been disappearing. When I was a lad my first job was to make the tea. That work is now done by vending machines, which no doubt do a better job than I did. The corner shops have disappeared and with them the lads who delivered the groceries by bicycle.
The second institutional reason was shown when the Holland committee inquired into reasons for youth unemployment. It found that employers readily took on youngsters for apprenticeships and office jobs but not for semiskilled and labouring work. Part of the reason for that is that employers go to the careers officers for apprentices and office workers, but they go to the jobcentres and employment offices to fill semi-skilled and labouring vacancies. That means that the careers officers who, in spite of criticism of them, do a superb job, just do not have the semi-skilled and labouring work to offer the 16 or 17-year-olds.
There is tremendous discrimination against the young in employment. That happens for several reasons. Employers believe youngsters to be less reliable than

older people. There are many more older people, including married women, than youngsters available to work. Given a choice between a married woman of 25 whose children are at school and a girl of 16 or 17, an employer will take on the former. That is partly because the older person has the image of being much more reliable. A further element is that differentials in pay as between the young and adults have been squeezed. There has been a change in the wage structure, contrary to the interests of young people as far as employment is concerned.
There is also a resistance among the work force to the recruitment of youngsters. Workers on the shop floor are opposed to youngsters being recruited to production jobs because they fear that, where earnings are related to production and bonuses are paid, the youngsters will muck around or will not have the strength to maintain the bonus earnings. One notices in engineering shops that, while adult males and females are employed on production work, very few youngsters are so engaged. The unions insist that apprentices have to be 16, 17 or 18. They want no adults in the training. The reverse attitude is adopted and acted upon with production work.
The incidence of shift working is another factor, because we stop youngsters of 16 and 17 from doing shift work, and the growth in that type of work has restricted employment opportunities for the young.
We must consider these problems in detail in an attempt to remove the institutional barriers from the employment of young people, rather than ascribing every aspect of youth unemployment to political causes. Short-term measures are needed. The youth opportunities programme should be extended in a number of ways. We should not be comparing the statistics of Labour and Conservative Governments. Our task should be to identify the need and to establish whether it is being met.
The Department of Employment has a good case to take to the Treasury for an extension of the YOP in terms both of numbers and duration. There is a limit on how long youngsters may spend in the programme. However, with employment becoming more and more difficult to find, the Government should tell the Manpower Services Commission that they will agree to extend the time that a youngster may spend in a youth opportunities


scheme so that young people are not forced out of the scheme into unemployment. If they are forced out, much of the value of the programme is undermined.
There should be greater provision of schemes other than work experience. The Government have succeeded in maintaining the numbers in the youth opportunities programme, but only by concentrating on the cheaper schemes and playing down the more expensive ones. However, the cheapest scheme—and for many, the most successful—is the work experience programme, and that needs extending. The problem with it is that it does not satisfy the needs of the roughest and the least qualified of our youngsters, because employers will not take them on to the works premises, and sponsors often will not take them up. These youngsters may be rough and inarticulate, but they are still entitled to a job.
The Department of Employment and the MSC must face up to the need for an expansion of opportunities for 18-year-olds. There is great pressure throughout the country to increase the allowance for this age group. The 16 and 17-year-olds are willingly taking up chances offered under the YOP, but the 18-year-olds often are not. There is evidence that the careers service and the Manpower Services Commission are having great difficulty with 18-year-olds because the allowance that is paid to them under the youth opportunities programme is not attractive enough.
The biggest problem that the Department of Employment faces is that of persuading the Treasury to increase the provision for the special temporary employment programme, not only for the 19 to 24-year-olds, but for the long-term unemployed among those over the age of 24. The Secretary of State misled the House when he said that the Government would maintain the STEP programme at 12,000. The Government cut it to 12,000, and they now intend to maintain the programme at that level. The previous Labour Government had a higher figure and proposed a higher figure still, but even that was inadequate. The figure for the long-term unemployed—people who have been unemployed for over a year—is expected to be 500,000 by 1982. Unemployment of two or three weeks or a month is no social disaster, but unem

ployment of 12 months is a personal, social and family disaster. There will be about 500,000 long-term unemployed in 1982, and the Government intend to maintain provision for 12,000. Those two figures side by side show that there is a national problem. The Government must act now to try to alleviate the problem of the long-term unemployed.
The tragedy of our present circumstances is that the Department of Employment has been too preoccupied over the past 12 months with the problems of industrial relations, and too little with the problems of unemployment. The Department has lost too many battles in its arguments with the Treasury on behalf of the unemployed. I hope that this debate changes the balance of thinking within the Department of Employment, and I hope that it gives it strength in dealing with Treasury Ministers in order to give the unemployed a fair deal.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: The House will have listened to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) with respect, He struck the right note when he said that we must all try to act together—employers, trade unions and the Government—in trying to solve these problems. He said that that applied particularly to youth unemployment, but I suggest that it must apply right across the board.
I do not often agree with an intervention from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but when he said that we do not want a Tweedledum or Tweedledee attitude I think that he was speaking for many hon. Members. I wish that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) had adopted a similarly constructive attitude. I do not wish to be partisan, but we are entitled to point out that the Opposition are in no position to cast stones at the Government on unemployment.
Under a Labour Government unemployment rose from 600,000 in 1974–75 to over 1,370,000 in the years 1977–79, and they anticipated a further rise. Labour Governments have twice doubled unemployment in the North-East, and I do not wish that to happen again, particularly under a Conservative Government. All hon. Members know that the


North is traditionally vulnerable to economic recession. Registered unemployed in the Northern region in March of this year was only 9,000 above the total for March 1979. But everyone knows that the upward trend is continuing, and it cannot be ignored. Neither side of the House can be acquiescent about unemployment, which has been running at over 9 per cent. in the Northern region for a number of years.
We should all be able to agree that there are no benefits from high unemployment. We cannot exaggerate the economic and financial cost or the social cost of unemployment at its present level. There is the cost to the economy in terms of low production, the financial cost to the Government in terms of loss of tax revenue, and the payment of unemployment and social security benefit. That is now well over £1,000 million a year higher than it was in 1974, and it is rising. That, of course, is to the detriment of the public sector borrowing requirement. Above all, there is the cost to society in terms of the social unrest that prolonged unemployment may provide. We should not underestimate the consequences of prolonged unemployment on social, racial, religious and regional tensions and, in the course of time, on attitudes to work and society.
The pernicious effect of a high level of unemployment is particularly noticeable among school leavers, and, as far as we can judge, it is likely to get worse. We cannot overestimate the debilitating effect on young people who have never had a job. They appear to be rejected by society without a chance, and that is bound to lead to a measure of disaffection. I am grateful for the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the Government's actions in regard to the youth opportunity programme and training programmes. In the longer run, perhaps we should consider whether it would not be better, for the young people and for the country, to introduce a period of conscription, not necessarily into the Armed Forces but into the public service. Perhaps that is a matter for another occasion.
In the next few years we shall have to give a high priority to regional policy as part of our general strategy. Perhaps the old economic planning councils were not

the best instruments for co-ordinating regional policies, but they were better than the vacuum that we have at present. Perhaps too many of the old grants, aids and subsidies were merely palliatives and did not deal with the structural changes that are taking place in industry which we cannot avoid. However true that may be, it is no reason for precluding sensible spending to assist productive industrial change, notably on training and on measures to improve labour mobility.
I am all for placing limits on public expenditure, and in any Department with which I was involved the expenditure went down, not up. I have always maintained, and I shall continue to maintain, that what matters is how the money is spent-how it is apportioned between investment and consumption, and how it is. apportioned between the regions. Instead of wasting over £1,000 million a year in additional unemployment and social security benefits, we need—and the CBI recognises it—a positive regional policy to improve the utilisation of resources in the less prosperous areas of Britain. That means a sensible public investment programme that creates wealth. If properly applied and administered, such a policy could reduce unemployment in depressed areas without—and this was always the anxiety—causing overheating or other damage to the rest of the economy. We had some problems in regard to overheating of the economy in the early 1970s, but we do not have those problems today. It is arguable which is the worst and most dangerous position to be in.
Without effective and sustained measures to create new job opportunities, it is extremely difficult to justify, for example, the closure of the Consett steel-works in Durham. That is a closure which will have a devastating effect on a whole community within an area in which, no job opportunities are readily available. Challenged by the British Steel Corporation to break even by March 1980, Consett did just that. It may be that there are accumulated heavy losses and it may be that ultimate closure is inevitable, but in the present situation we should not underestimate the social as well as the economic damage that cannot be repaired by large-scale redundancy payments, which are themselves made at the taxpayers' expense.
It is not that the Government's general strategy or purpose is wrong but rather that it is being inadequately fulfilled. It is not a question of making U-turns but rather of responding to changing circumstances and the realities of economic life. I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there can be no patent medicines and that there are no easy options. It is not a choice between inflation and unemployment. It is certainly true that if inflation is not curbed unemployment cannot be contained. Therefore, we must all recognise—th;s follows from what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was saying—that we must work together to solve this problem, accepting that the economy cannot stand another round of excessive pay increases.
In the context of this debate, it is sad that Mr. Len Murray should make another rather senseless speech on the subject this morning, saying that unemployment has no effect on wage demands—[Interruption]. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mutters from the Opposition Front Bench, but the fact is that we must consider this problem together. The trade unions have a part to play, as do the employers and the Government, just as the Opposition have a duty to be responsible in the national interest.
Therefore, public sector pay is an area in which the Government must set an example. They must lay down guidelines which, whether or not we like the words, are, in effect, an incomes policy for the rest to follow. In that I think they would be helped by saying "Thank you and goodbye" to the Clegg Commission and to Lord Boyle's Top Salaries Review Body. My right hon. Friend will have noted that the chairman of the Conservative Party in another place only a few days ago said that Clegg was a disaster and that comparability was a meaningless concept. There were some Conservative Members—more than 100—who suggested that the Clegg Commission might go the day after it had been appointed. It was once said that one man's pay increase was another man's price increase. What is truer today is that one man's pay increase may be another man's job.
I believe that managing the economy is a question of balance. The unanimous view of the summit conference in Venice was that we must somehow contrive to fight inflation without recession. That is not easy, but I do not believe that it is impossible, once one accepts that excessively high interest rates and a correspondingly distorted exchange rate neither automatically curb the money supply nor reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. Indeed, there is growing evidence to the contrary. I have argued it myself for a long time, and I was glad to see similar views expressed by Lord Lever of Manchester, among others, in the House of Lords recently.
The Government are continuing to borrow on terms which will cost generations of taxpayers thousands of millions of pounds a year more than it should or need. The annual amount of interest which the Government must pay on the national debt has, over the last 10 years, risen from £1,419 million to an estimated £9,885 million. It has risen most since 1974–75. The debt itself has risen from £33,442 million in 1970–71 to £95,327 million in the last financial year. That is about £1,700 worth of debt for every man, woman and child in the country. But in this context, and more significantly, the overall rate of interest for the same period has increased from 4·5 per cent. to 9·5 per cent. and is expected to reach 10·4 per cent. in 1980–81. That really does add to the PSBR and does not reduce it.
Meanwhile, industry is forced to go on borrowing at rates which cripple investment, productivity and profitability, thus aggravating the unemployment problem. So far as I can see, the only immediate beneficiaries are the moneylenders, who are allowed to act as though the word "usury" had never been invented. They are enjoying a euphoria unknown since the early days of Herbert Hoover and the so-called return to normalcy.
Perhaps I might recall a little more of the days of Herbert Hoover and add that it does an injustice to Professor Friedman to limit his doctrine to a theory about the necessity of controlling the money supply in all circumstances. In his book "Free to Choose" he not only points out that the banking crisis in the 1930s in the United States brought about the dis


appearance of thousands of banks but adds:
the total stock of money showed an equally drastic decline. For every $3 of deposits and currency in the hands of the public in 1929, less than $2 remained in 1933—a money collapse without precedent".
As Friedman goes on to point out, that decline in the money supply undoubtedly made the economic collapse far worse than it would otherwise have been. He said that business failure, declining output and growing unemployment all fostered uncertainty and fear. In my judgment, we are heading that way today. If that calls for a change of direction, so be it.
If Governments refuse to adapt the means by which they seek to achieve their policies, they are called obstinate and arrogant. If they do modify their policies, they are criticised for making U-turns. To a large extent it is a Catch 22 situation. But I would say to my right hon. Friends, better by far to adopt the attitude of the late Sir Winston Churchill, who when charged with inconsistency said that his thoughts were a continuous and harmonious process.
A man who goes out on a sunny morning with a rolled up umbrella to use as a walking stick is not criticised for making a U-turn because he holds it up when the deluge comes in the afternoon.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) coped admirably with his Catch-22 situation, because he made a number of pertinent points about the Northern region. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) knows, the Select Committee on employment took some interesting evidence in Newcastle and is fully aware of the problems that he outlined and the hammer blow that the closure of Consett would be to that area.
I was sorry that the Secretary of State for Employment did not open today's debate, because anyone who was looking for a positive and constructive statement on the Government's intentions towards employment generation must have been sorely disappointed. I realise what a toom tabard we have in the Scottish Office at the present time. It was a disgrace to give the House the kind of

historical treatise that it was given this afternoon.
The sad thing is that this will be only one of many debates on the subject of unemployment at a time when we can see a rising graph in the unemployment figures.
It is a frightening fact that the Government are prepared to watch the pool of unemployment grow into a dam that will overwhelm the economy of Britain. There is evidence of a fall in retail turnover in the past month, and that is only the beginning of a downward trend in the economy of Britain. There are Tories who imagine that unemployment is something that many prefer. There may be a few who are happy to be idle, but the majority do not seek unemployment.
There are now 52,600 people out of work in Glasgow. Among males, the figure has risen to 13·6 per cent. The bleakness of the position is revealed in the figures for the two employment exchange areas that converge on my constituency. In one there are 4,455 on the unemployment register, with only 161 vacancies, while in the other there are 7,839 on the unemployment register, with only 458 vacancies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme pointed out so effectively, people will remain on that register for longer and longer periods.
That is not the position throughout the length and breadth of Britain. In London and the South-East, two thirds of the males on the unemployment register have been registered for less than six months, whereas in Merseyside a half of the males on the register have been registered for more than six months. There is a considerable unevenness in the distribution of unemployment. Moreover, I am concerned about the fact that in my area we are seeing more redundancies and indications of short-time working in the pipeline.
The Secretary of State did not give way to me when he was speaking about apprenticeship opportunities. I wanted to tell him that an engineering company in my constituency, which I shall be visiting on Friday afternoon, took on seven apprentices last year, but this year it will take on only two. At one employment exchange last year 80 vacancies were registered by the local authority. This year, only eight have been registered. That


is another indication of the extent to which public expenditure reductions are beginning to take their toll.
We hear a great deal about entrepreneurs. That word has become more and more fashionable. The present rate of interest is enough to frighten off anybody thinking of starting a new business, to say nothing of those who spend sleepless nights worrying about how to keep their existing businesses viable. The main problems that worry industrialists in my area are interest rates, the high level of inflation and the value of the pound. The Government should do something to reduce the level of interest rates. We read that Germany will have an inflation level of 4 per cent. next year. The Government should also reduce the artificially high level of the pound, which has greatly affected our exports.
If the latest predictions of the IMF are correct, it is clear that Britain will have to do more to satisfy the home market rather than continue to see a flood of imports. Part of the problem is that Britain has a singularly effective retail distribution network. We are too good in that area of activity, and we tend to facilitate the inward movement of goods and services.
North Sea Oil has become a chloroform that is producing a coma in our industrial community. When we waken to the realities of the industrial surgery that is taking place throughout the country, we shall realise the grave conditions that youngsters and older people will face in the 1980s. If we treat the younger generation as improvidently as the Government are apparently treating the great reserves of North Sea Oil, Britain will face a chilling future. It will deserve all that it gets. because the youngsters in Britain are also our resource for the future.
I notice that there is a growing restlessness which, as yet, has not articulated itself on the Conservative Benches, but it is coming. The CBI sent us a newsletter saying that it backs the Government but that it wants "some flexibility". As the number of redundancies and, more especially, bankruptcies begins to grow, the Back Benches will begin to turn. There comes a point where loyalty ceases to be a virtue and becomes a vice. Bearing in mind the parliamentary arithmetic we know that we shall not win the vote in

the Lobby tonight, but we need more Tories to speak up for sanity.

Mr. Harry Greenway: We have heard in speeches today—and in previous speeches—about the effect of unemployment upon individuals, families, communities, areas and nations. There is much stirring literature to direct one's thoughts towards the effect of unemployment upon individuals and to heighten one's appreciation of the problems. However, I have not heard, either inside the House or outside it, any discussion about the effects of unemployment on schools.
I was working, in a top position, in a comprehensive school with 2,000 pupils for the five years between 1974 and 1979. I am not seeking to be unduly partisan, but youth unemployment and unemployment among school leavers rose during that time by 500 per cent.—and some say that it could have been more than that. The effect of that on schools was very serious, and needs to be taken into account. Schools are microcosms of the broad community in which we live, and reflect that community. Schools must have a sense of idealism in going about their task of preparing children both for life and for work. They set out to establish in pupils a work ethic. That is important, and it has been mentioned this afternoon.
Qualifications have also been mentioned. A school, if it is going well, will strive hard to help its pupils to achieve the highest possible qualifications. I know that some pupils will not achieve any formal qualifications, but if schools are doing the job that they were established to do, they are concerned to bring all individuals to a sense of the important matters in life that are essential to sound working practices; for example, punctuality, diligence, smartness, honest endeavour and sound relationsips. Those attributes help the school to work well, and help the individuals in their work when they come to it.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said that low achievers had more difficulty in getting jobs today than in past years because they are low achievers. I am talking of low achievers, not under-achievers. I am not sure that is true. I am proud to say that schools today are doing more for low and mid-ability pupils than has been done


for many years. Many are, in fact, doing well in getting jobs, whereas others with very good qualifications are not succeeding. Provided that a boy or girl has sound motivation and is prepared to work well, and has a bit of personality and understanding of sound relationships in work, in the family and in society, that individual, whether or not he or she has many formal qualifications gets into work. I can say this from long experience in schools over 20 years.

Mr. David Alton: From the hon. Gentleman's experience in schools—an experience which I have shared—will he say what the crisis of morale is doing to youngsters who, when they go to jobcentres, find that there is no work for them? What point is there in having the best educated youngsters if they are going to be in the dole queue?

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has made for me the very point that I was making. There is a serious effect upon schools if there is a long dole queue.
Schools, like everyone else in society, have a keen interest in high levels of employment. If jobs are available, boys and girls will work well at school, staff will be motivated, families will come in and support the school and it will be a thriving community—the kind of backbone that we need for the nation that we want.
I believe that the Government, employers and the unions—I spread my theme more widely—have to work together on this vital question of employment. Attention has rightly been drawn to the part that the Government and employers have to play. Management is sometimes much less sensitive than it needs to be towards young employees. The unions also have a role to play.
I had a surprise—indeed, a shock—when a young man aged 21 walked into my surgery last Friday and told me his story. I should like to share his experience with the House, because it may by symptomatic, though I hope that it is not. This young man, Graham Hunter-Gray, told me that he had been to a secondary modem school. He had a job as a cold store operator. It was seasonal work. He was not a member of a union and he decided to work on the TUC's so-called day of action, 14 May. On 15 May he was told by the manager of the

cold store unit that he was a blackleg and could not work there.
Graham went back to the company and asked if it would do something about it. The company offered him other employment for which, due to there being a closed shop in operation, he needed to be a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, but that union would not accept him.
The company then offered him clerical work, but for this, again due to there being a closed shop, he had to be a member of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, I understand, and that union would not accept him because of the Bridlington agreement. I do not see how that applies, strictly speaking, but that was Graham's story.
Therefore, Graham was suspended from work for a month. During that time he again applied for membership of the Transport and General Workers Union. Having applied, he was asked to attend a branch meeting, but was refused membership. He was asked at the meeting why he went to work on 14 May. I should point out that he was not at that time a member of any union affiliated to the TUC, so, logically, he could not necessarily be expected to be involved in the TUC's day of action. However, following his assertion that he wished to work on 14 May, he was told that he was unacceptable, since he could not be relied upon to strike in future.
At that same meeting three other older union members were present. This court, comprising 26 members of the union, was held on a Saturday morning. The three older union members, who, like Graham, had also worked on 14 May, were put through their paces. Each of the three was told that if he paid a day's pay to a charity of his own choice that would be the end of the matter. Those men were not asked to name the charities to which they would pay the money. It was left at that. I think that that was a wise decision. That option was not extended to Graham. He appealed to the regional office, but has not yet received a reply. The branch manager has had to sack him as he is a non-union member. Graham is within the category about which we are concerned in this debate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I will in a moment. Graham is 21. He went to a secondary modern school—he is not a highly educated chap—and got himself a job. He is now out of a job through no fault of his own.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Greenway: Not for the moment. Graham is unnecessarily unemployed. I shall take this matter up with Mr. Moss Evans and hope to get a fair reply from him. I cannot understand why Graham could not have been given at least the same treatment as the other three workers to whom I referred.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has made substantial accusations against the Transport and General Workers Union. Before he made his statement in the House, did he seek to identify the officers of the union concerned and find out the other side of the story? Or is this a typical example of a Conservative Member coming to the House and making unsubstantiated accusations on the basis of one side of the story only?

Mr. Greenway: I do not need that sort of lecture from that hon. Gentleman or anybody else. I saw letters, almost illiterate letters, from union officials—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Check the facts.

Mr. Greenway: —to a youth of 21 who had had to stand before a kangaroo court of 26 people on a Saturday morning and be treated in that way. He has been thrown out of his job. It is a serious matter. I am not concerned with knocking unions or anybody else, but it is my job to bring before the House the plight of this young man, a constituent, who falls within the category about which we are rightly shedding tears today. We must practise what we preach. So must the unions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Check the facts.

Mr. Greenway: I consider that I am right and that it is my duty to call the attention of the House to the position

of my constituents, particularly in the context of today's debate.

Mr. David Alton: The Opposition Front Bench opened the debate by referring to an article that appeared in The Sun this morning. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) talked about the article in Sir "Larry" Lamb's newspaper which gives advice to people who might be looking for jobs. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the suggestion in that paper that people might become beach attendants. There is another example of how people should go about getting jobs. It states:
Agricultural work is one possibility. All sorts of crops need picking from now on.
Check whether your local farmer wants help.
That is not much use to people living in our cities, where the main unemployment problems occur. That newspaper, rather like some of the speeches from the Government Benches this afternoon, demonstrates a typical insensitivity when looking at the problems of the young unemployed. [Interruption.] I have listened to the entire debate. With the exception of the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), the speeches by Conservative Members were of the kind that might be expected from a party that has helped to drive unemployment up to close on 1½ million.

Mr. Greenway: Since the hon. Gentleman is being critical of the speeches of Conservative Members, may I remind him that during the course of my speech he was in total agreement with what I was saying, and went on to say it again for me?

Mr. Alton: I do not know the exact details of the constituency case that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly brought to the attention of the House, but I know that many of my young constituents, because of the economic policies being pursued by the Government, are not getting the opportunity to work. One constituent, however important he may be, and however important the circumstances may be, is not fundamental to the issues that we are discussing today. If there are not jobs available for youngsters such as the one mentioned by the


hon. Gentleman, that is the fault of the hon. Gentleman's Government. It is the fault, not necessarily of the Secretary of State for Employment, but of many of his colleagues who are not here this afternoon—people from the Treasury and from the Department of Industry. [Interruption.] My colleagues are at a parliamentary party meeting, which occurs at this time each Wednesday.
I know that the Prime Minister is an avid reader of The Sun newspaper. She has told everybody so. I am not sure whether she is an avid reader of The Guardian, but I draw to her attention and to that of the Secretary of State the leader in this morning's edition. It states:
Incomes policy may never have been a triumph, but free collective bargaining has time and again proved to be a disaster.
In this country it is no longer a matter of free collective bargaining; it is more like free collective chaos. One strong union is able to hold the country to ransom and to demand vast amounts of money for its workers, resulting in an increase of perhaps 20 per cent. in wages, as has happened already on average this year. As the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said, this inevitably means that one man's pay increase is another man's job.
If people are demanding more and more money for themselves, that is the economics of the mad house, where money is being taken by one group of workers often at the expense of the jobs of another group of workers. But, equally, the high interest rates, at 17 per cent., which have been allowed by the Government to accumulate have meant that many small businesses are being forced to the point of bankruptcy, are having to lay off workers and are contemplating closing down altogether.

Mr. Richard Needham: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on free collective bargaining. Is he aware that at the last election in my constituency the Liberal candidate was violently opposed to any form of incomes policy and a great believer in free collective bargaining?

Mr. Alton: I am not sure who was the Liberal candidate in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at the last election, but sometimes, as he will know from his own party, there are dissenting voices. The

Liberal Party is the only party in this class that has consistently pursued a policy of incomes restraint through a properly ordered and statutory prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Skinner: The Liberal Party has never had to carry one out. That is the point.

Mr. Alton: The Liberal Party had an opportunity when it entered into an agreement with the Labour Party. It did not just talk about theories but has to put its policies into practice. I remind hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that prior to the agreement with the Labour Party—

Mr. Skinner: It was not with the Labour Party.

Mr. Alton: —in this House, the mortgage interest rate was 12·25 per cent. By the middle of the pact it had been reduced to 8·5 per cent. [Interruption.] At the present time, as hon. Members will probably not need to be reminded—

Mr. Skinner: What a load of tripe.

Mr. Alton: —the rate stands at 15 per cent. One of the consequences of that has been felt in the construction industry. There has been a massive decline in private house building. That, inevitably, has had an effect on construction workers. Only a week or so ago we were discussing the state of the British construction industry, in which close on 200,000 people are out of work.
Let us consider next the minimum lending rate. In March 1977, as a result of political co-operation—[Interruption.] I am speaking of political cooperation and what it can achieve, not just carping from the Back Benches. The minimum lending rate then stood at 10·5 per cent. Today it stands at 17 per cent. Inflation, which was reduced to single figures, now stands at 22 per cent.
I do not claim that that was all a result of the Lib-Lab pact—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I claim that it was a victory for common sense, conciliation and co-operation. [Interruption.] I have always supported the principle of political cooperation and agreement, and I also supported the introduction of the Lib-Lab pact. [Interruption.] The point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. It is not right for hon. Members to shout continually. We all enjoy an amusing joke, but continual interjections become a little boring after a while.

Mr. Alton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many young people in this country today are becoming sickened by the spectacle of the statistics being bandied around and by the constant—

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: Let us have this on the record. Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical answer to the point that I have been trying to make? Is it a fact that when the Lib-Lab pact was started in this House—after the International Monetary Fund had ripped up the Labour Party manifesto—the hon. Gentleman, not then a Member of this House but practising community politics in Liverpool, put on the record, along with many others in the Liberal Party, that he was against the Lib-Lab pact?

Mr. Alton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I voted for the party resolution at our party conference—although I am not sure of its relevance to our debate today—in favour of the Lib-Lab pact. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not think we drove a hard enough bargain with members of his party.

Mr. Skinner: I have the cutting.

Mr. Alton: I am in favour of political cooperation, as I have been reiterating, but if ever again we enter into an agreement with the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, I hope that we shall drive a harder bargain on the economic policies to be pursued to alleviate the unemployment situation in Britain. People are fed up with the sordid spectacle of hon. Members shouting and bawling at one another and bandying statistics around but ignoring the plight of every individual in the dole queue at the present time.
I should like to give an example from my own constituency in Liverpool. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred hon. Members to today's edition of the Liverpool Daily Post. The

Liverpool Echo last night pointed out that unemployment had reached a record 13 per cent. on Merseyside and commented that
it's going to get worse".
The article referred to a
jobless total of 98,244—compared with last month's total of 91,534",
and added
There are now 11,085 youngsters chasing 73 jobs at careers offices on Merseyside.
[Interruption.] Those are not just statistics. Every one of those people is a human being who has been educated in our schools and had vast amount of public money spent on him. They have raised their aspirations and hopes, only to have them frustrated and thwarted when they look for some kind of work. Is it any wonder that they become bitter and twisted? Is it any wonder that we have the problems that we have in our cities, when people are festering with great concern and worry about their own futures?
Is it any wonder that we have the trauma of people having to leave home in search of jobs'? The Conservative Party talks a great deal about its concern for family life. Nothing is doing more to break up families in the heart of our cities than the policies of the Government. They are driving people away from places such as Liverpool and Glasgow. Only this morning I was talking to youngsters of 16 and 17, 44 per cent. of whom are unemployed in the city of Glasgow. The position there is even worse than it is in Liverpool.
In the face of all these problems, the Government have decided to reduce, in terms of real expenditure, the Manpower Services Commission. I am not one of those in favour of providing palliatives or poultices for problems. We have to get to the fundamental reasons for unemployment and try to do something about them. Until we are in a position where we can start combating unemployment and its root causes, it is absurd to reduce the budget of the Manpower Services Commission. It is absurd to cut back on schemes that have been in operation in many of our cities through voluntary agencies and thus exacerbate the problems of the young unemployed.
The Government are leading us in a dance macabre. High interest rates are


doing little, if anything, to reduce the growth of the money supply, yet they are crucifying industry, directly and indirectly. Foreign money is being attracted to London, so artificially boosting the level of the pound. Our exports are becoming dearer and foreign imports cheaper. Our firms are losing orders at home and abroad. As a result, there is higher unemployment.
Free-for-all wage bargaining is making British industry even less competitive. As The Guardian states, the latest St. James group forecast shows that nominal wage increases of 10 per cent. this winter, with wage rises falling by 1 per cent. a year thereafter, would cut inflation by two-thirds and boost manufacturing output by 4 per cent. in 1983 and 5 per cent. in 1984.
Under the present policy of applying the law of the jungle to the wage bargaining process, manufacturing output is expected to fall every year for the next four years. That will mean more unemployment. It is a dance of death, and the victim is the British economy. National output is falling, and is forecast to go on falling, in spite of our oil wealth. The rate of inflation has doubled in the last year. The Prime Minister is celebrating the fact that it has peaked at nearly three times the level that it reached during the Lib-Lab pact. Our manufacturing industry is being destroyed in the name of dogma.
What do we expect to pay for our food and clothing when the oil runs out, as it must? The spiral will become worse and worse. The people bearing the brunt of the attack on our living standards are the youth of the country. Between 1973 and 1978 youth unemployment rose by 870 per cent., when unemployment generally rose by a bad enough 147 per cent.
The latest figures by the Department of Employment show more than 500,000 people under the age of 24 out of work. The only age group anywhere near that are the 60-year-olds. A total of 187,000 school leavers are unemployed. They are youngsters who have never been given the chance. The Sun would suggest that they organise donkey rides on the beach.
The Government must reverse their lunatic policies now. An incomes policy is vital. Further schemes for profit sharing and worker participation are essential to increase productivity and therefore

competitiveness. There should be useful ways of employing the unemployed on public works, both social and capital, even if only part time.
Every incentive should be given for people to invest in wealth-creating industry, instead of being paid by the Government to take out mortgages on bricks and mortar. I commend the amendment to the Finance Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) to give tax relief to small investors in industry to bring that into line with mortgages and life assurance policies.
There must be an industrial strategy for employment. If the Government delay, it will be too late. We have already seen the events at St. Paul's, Bristol. Surveys in The Times have shown links between high crime rates and youth unemployment. The danger is that British society will blow apart at the seams—young versus old, employed versus unemployed, North versus South and black versus white. The blame will be the Tory Cabinet's, and nobody else's.
I come from an area where unemployment is close on the 30 per cent, mark—even higher than the city-wide average of 13 per cent. There is a powder keg in our cities. It is like a time bomb that is ticking away and could blow the heart out of our cities if young people become angry and erupt against the people who have shown such callous contempt for their problems. It is up to hon. Members and the Government to concentrate on the causes of unemployment, and not on its effects. We require a prices and incomes policy and work-sharing schemes so that more work is made available for more people.
There should be a lower retirement age. We need a proper regional policy so that the differences between the regions are properly examined. Steps must be taken to ensure that the discrepancies between the affluent South-East and the deprived North-West are rectified.
When she was Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister asked
Will the Prime Minister explain why, after four years of Labour Government, the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in any of our major industrial competitors?…Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his policies have led to that result?"—[Official Report, 4 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 234–35.]


I am sure that I speak on behalf of many young people when I ask why the Government, like their predecessors, have allowed unemployment to rise so high? More important, what are they going to do about it? Why do they not get together with the other parties in the House to try to thrash out solutions to our unemployment crisis?

Mr. David Madel: All right hon. and hon. Members have stressed the seriousness of the unemployment figures. They have said that the country is not alone in facing the crisis which has been brought about mainly as a result of the colossal increases in world oil prices in the last two years. Britain was less able to cope with the strains, partly because of low investment, partly because of unsatisfactory working methods in many factories and partly because of none too good industrial relations.
The motor industry is beginning to experience great difficulties. In the last 15 years Chancellors of the Exchequer from both parties have used the taxation system clumsily on the motor industry, in a way that Germany, Japan and France have not. As a result, their motor industries are in a stronger position to face the recession.
The motor industry is the only major industry in Britain which attracts a double system of indirect taxation. Car tax was introduced in the 1972 Budget and came into effect in April 1973. That was 10 per cent. in addition to VAT. The yield from car tax in 1973–74 was £120 million. It climbed to only about £380 million in 1978–79. When the Chancellor examines the balance between vehicle sales, tax revenues and future employment in the motor industry, I hope that he will agree that there is a case for asking whether we should continue with the tax.
I do not seek to wipe out all revenue from car sales. However, this is the first time since that special tax was introduced that the motor industry has started to slide into a real recession. Yesterday we read about redundancies at Ford. Vauxhall is now in the middle of a two-week lay-off for some employees with no certainty about what will happen after the summer break. Bearing in mind

the number of industries which rely on the motor industry, the car tax question should be examined now.
I wish to examine the existing programmes to combat unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and to make suggestions about how we might make improvements. Everyone will admit that the Government are involved in a measure of subsidy, as in every Western Government, to try to combat unemployment. It is vital that it is not an everlasting, open-ended subsidy but that it is used to create real jobs and real opportunities for training which give people a chance to move on to real jobs.
The Opposition are fussed about the alteration which the Government made to the job release scheme. They made an alteration to it six weeks before the general election. Welcome though the scheme is, it is difficult for employers to adapt to sudden changes in it. A skilled man might retire early, but it is not always easy for an employer to find a skilled unemployed person to fill the vacancy. We need a period of stability with the scheme so that there is a take-up of unemployed people.
We should examine whether we should relieve some employers for national insurance contributions for a couple of years if they take on a young person between the ages of 19 years and 24 years. That has been done in Belgium with a modicum of success. To some extent, it has been put into practice in the Republic of Ireland.
In a more dramatic way, it is also being tried in Canada, where there is an employment tax credit programme. Under the Canadian scheme, employers receive an employment tax credit if they hire an unemployed person to fill a newly created job and if that person adds to the normal work force. The Canadian scheme does not, therefore, underwrite jobs that might otherwise be lost. We should consider that scheme carefully. The scheme has provided about 20,000 jobs and has been sufficiently successful for the Canadian Government to continue it until 31 March 1981. I hope that this Government will consider those two aspects.
I particularly welcomed the statement that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made yesterday at Question Time. Hon Members may like to refer to column 211 of the Official


Report in which my right hon. Friend is reported as having said that the youth opportunities programmes had been expanded by more than 60 per cent. in the past two years. The Manpower Services Commission commissioned a research project entitled "Into Work". We must consider whether the youth opportunities programme is succeeding, and whether any alterations should be made as a result of the research project. Page 22 of the document questions whether the training given by the youth opportunities programme is too similar to school tuition. The commission interviewed several of those who had been on a course. It pointed out that, where-ever possible, training should take place within a working environment. It pointed out that care should be taken to prevent an atmosphere of scholastic tuition. It argued that participants should be treated as adults.
A new provision in America may be particularly relevant to Britain. The Carnegie Centre has just published a research project. The Economist of 12 April states:
What is suggested is that two days a week all through the last two years of high school, should be devoted to activities outside the classroom, either work or volunteer community service. Normal instruction in skills and academic subjects can be compressed into the other three days without serious loss.
The White House was so impressed by that idea that President Carter announced in his January budget that $2 billion would be given towards a project to help the urban unemployed, particularly young blacks.
The Department of Education and Science, the MSC and the Department of Employment should get to know each other better. I am worried about the way in which training is organised and about the change from school to working life. Those three bodies often work not in harmony, but in different directions. The Carnegie project could, and must bring them together if we wish to make such a start.
In relation to the youth opportunities programme, the research project also mentions short industrial courses. On page 22, it states:
The Manpower Services Commission should ensure that Short Training Courses, and Skill Sampling Courses should, wherever possible, include short placements on employers' pre

mises to complement the skills sampled at a college.
Although those who have been on such courses welcomed the instruction that they received at college, some of them feel that it is no substitute for experience on an employer's premises. I welcome the project's remarks. On page 23, it states:
where a young person begins to realise through being on a Short Course that she/he would like to learn a skill/craft beyond the basic level offered on the Short Course, there should be provision for her/him either to transfer to a more specialist course, or to carry on to a supplementary course which builds upon the basic skills learnt.
The project is a serious piece of research.
I have given only three specific suggestions for improving the youth opportunities programme. I hope that the Government will consider the project, and suggest and make alterations.
One aspect is of vital importance. The document points out that one major problem is the level of confusion that exists among the young about the youth opportunities programme. It is stated on page 24:
They had very little knowledge of the range of options, the difference between the various schemes and the opportunities which should have been available for training, transfer and employment.
Representatives of the Manpower Services Commission should go into schools and talk to those who are in their last year. They should point out that if the worst happens and a school leaver is unable to find a job the MSC can offer a range of courses, and can guarantee some form of help. Young people would then understand more clearly what was on offer.
I hope that the Government will make greater use of skillcentres. There is an age limit. It is impossible for a young person to go to a skillcentre until he or she is 19 years of age. In times of unemployment, that age limit should be lowered to 16. Many of my hon. Friends are also interested in the "open tech", which is mentioned in the Conservative manifesto. How near are we to starting that project? Will it involve home learning, or courses at polytechnics? How will day release fit in? How will the project fit in with the Open University? I know that much preparatory work has been done on the "open tech." As unemployment increases, the need for an "open tech" becomes more urgent.
I have suggested that we should concentrate subsidies on areas that will lead to the creation of real jobs. Once real jobs have been taken up, those subsidies will not be needed. We should also concentrate such subsidies so that help is given to the young to acquire skills. The nation must become more skilled if it is to survive. I hope that the Government will proceed accordingly.

Mr. Donald Coleman: When hon. Members from all parties read the report of the debate I am sure that they will agree that the speeches that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) have adorned it. Their speeches will have encouraged young people. They will have given them a hope that they would not have had if they had listened only to statistics being given in a snarling way that compared how "we" did with how "they" did, and so on.
The subjects under debate will have far greater impact than our own political significance, or insignificance. I grew up in the days of the depression. I came from a home that was plagued by unemployment. When I hear the word "unemployment", it sears through my soul. When I realise what society can do to its members, I am filled with horror and revulsion.
The debate gives us an opportunity to consider youth unemployment. The Government cannot complain if people believe that the Government think that money is more important than people. People outside believe that as long as this philosophy persists, more and more of them will find themselves out of a job. Regrettably, the momentum and the pace of this phenomenon is growing daily. There are those who believe that protests about industrial closures can be quietened by the payment of enhanced redundancy moneys and the provision of schemes which will accommodate natural wastage. None of us can blame those workers who find themselves in such an uncertain situation, faced with the loss of their jobs, that they take these bribes. Those who put their faith in such practices should be ashamed because what they are doing is stealing the jobs

of our young people and denying them the right to work.
The redundancy payment schemes was never intended to be a means of buying up jobs to destroy those jobs. The British Steel Corporation has been busily engaged in just that practice over the past few years. The whole purpose of the schemes was to compensate workers for the loss of jobs that were no longer required by a modern society. If we do nothing else tonight, other than make known our opposition to this destruction by such methods of the rights of our young people to jobs this debate will have been worth while.
I wish to enter a plea for my area—my county and my constituency. Neath is part of West Glamorgan and contributes greatly to the industrial capacity of that county. West Glamorgan is a very compact area and there is considerable cross-travel-to-work throughout the county. Therefore, when a closure occurs in any part of the county, it affects not only that part in which the closure has taken place, but the whole of the county. What happens in Neath is as bad for Port Talbot and Swansea as it is for us in Neath.
It is regrettable to record that since this Government came to office, unemployment in Neath has risen from 8·1 per cent. in May 1979 to 9·2 per cent. in June 1980. Even worse, youth unemployment has risen in actual figures—from 189 to 341—during that period. From the investigations that I have made with the youth employment service I have found that this is only the beginning, and shortly we shall see a further rise in unemployment. In my area even young people who have been apprenticed find themselves no longer safe from the ravages of unemployment.
Having outlined the relationship between the various parts of West Glamorgan, I move to the situation that the county faces as a result of the slim-down of the Port Talbot steelworks. If one went into any playground of any comprehensive school in the county, spoke to a group of children and asked them where their parents had found work and where they themselves hoped to find work, I guarantee that a large proportion would say "We shall find work at the steelworks." In the face of such a dependence for jobs


by both young and old in West Glamorgan on the Port Talbot steelworks, it is little wonder that the pathetic response of the Secretary of State for Industry and his monetarist disciple, the Secretary of State for Wales, in refusing our plea that the whole of our county should receive special development area status should have caused such anger.
West Glamorgan has a proud record of preparing its young people to take their place and make their contribution to Britain's future prosperity. But the response of the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Wales has been to ignore this. In turning a deaf ear to our pleas, they are condemning our young people to becoming members of one of the best educated dole queues in the world. That is what the theories of monetarism really means in practice.
My young constituents in Neath will come to realise that as long as these ideas are pursued more of them will become unemployed. My challenge to the conscience of the House tonight is that we must put a stop to these policies. If we do not, our young people—not only in West Glamorgan, but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—will never forgive us.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: In his opening remarks the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) put it rather well when he said that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) had made an excellent and constructive speech. That also applies to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). The reason why their speeches were so good was that they all moved along constructive lines, as did the hon. Member for Neath to a large extent.
I believe that the days are over now for this boring practice of the Socialists in the red corner and the Tories in the blue corner bashing themselves across the Floor of the House of Commons about whether they have done the right thing. I have been here so long that I am getting bored with that, and personally I would like to see much more of the Select Committee approach. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is the chairman of the Select Committee on

Employment, on which several of my able colleagues also serve. I have the difficult task of trying to lead, without being the chairman, the Social Services Select Committee, and I have just been outvoted on my suggestion that unemployment should be a matter for our consideration because it involves benefits and many matters of crucial importance to this country. But never mind, it is possible that we shall deal with it next year.
The whole question of future employment prospects in this country requires the attention of the collective brains of members of all parties in the House. The only Liberal speech that we have heard tonight was from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and that speech was entirely designed for outside consumption. It consisted of a collection of statistics put together after the hon. Gentleman had read an inordinate number of quotes. We need a little original thinking on this matter. It may not be good, and hon. Members may not like it, but I shall put forward some original thinking in my short observations.
I want to deal with two aspects of the problem—the "unemployables", those who have been unemployed for a year or more, and youth unemployment. The Isle of Thanet consistently has 8 to 10 per cent. unemployment. It is in the South-East, but it is a major area of unemployment. We have a lot of youth unemployment and, for reasons of health, many people retire early to my part of the world and there is much long-term unemployment. Some of those retired people are unemployable and some cannot get employment because it does not exist in my area.
Many people have suggested to me that we should have national conscription. I explain politely and patiently that the Services would probably not want it. What is the point of having conscription if it will not serve the needs of the nation? However, may we not have to consider some form of conscription of youth into work for 12 months to enable them to be trained and to be working during an important part of their lives, in which they would gain the discipline that would arise from a job, albeit a compulsory one?
If hon. Members say that it would be going a little far to force young people


to take a job, I ask whether it is going too far to introduce a form of community service. Many young people in my constituency do a considerable amount of voluntary community service. Would that be helpful for a while? At least they would be working, which is better than being unemployed. I am concerned about the possible breaking down of their morale at a young age.
If that suggestion is turned down because it is thought to go too far, I turn to various other schemes of which the Government operate some, including skillcentres and the YOP. We could develop those. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was right to say that part of the trouble is that youngsters of 16 or 18 are being paid too much compared with young people of 22 or 24. That militates against their employment prospects. Of course one would give a job to a sensible, married women of 25 who has one child and wants to work rather than to a 17-year-old.
The Government must analyse that approach and the Opposition must help. We must look at such schemes to see whether, in the long term and in light of the dangers of youth unemployment, we can pull together to find schemes to alleviate the problem. Of course, that involves an obligation on young people to take a job. Many hon. Members have three or four skills and occupations—I have at least three or four—and we are able to do many different jobs. However, it is part of the rules of the Department of Employment that a person cannot be forced to change his job. That is wrong.
After a reasonable time we must expect a person to have to change his job rather than stay unemployed. He may even have to move his home. I knew a foundryman in the Isle of Thanet, where we have only one company that employs foundrymen. He was not employed by that company and could not get a job in Thanet, but he wanted to stay there and to remain unemployed and go on being paid. I told the social security people to get rid of him and to send him elsewhere. I said that he should be allowed to stay only if he was willing to change his job.
We need to train our young. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South suggested, we should adopt the suggestion of the Carnegie Centre and allow youngsters to go out to work one day a week before they leave school. That is particularly important for those who will have to undertake unskilled work.
Our Select Committees could help the Government in the basic thinking. Along those lines, I beg the House to give up party politics in this area. It is unworthy of the House and is not fruitful.
About 55 per cent. of the unemployed have been out of work for more than 13 weeks, about 15 per cent. have been out of work for between six and 12 months and about 25 per cent. have been out of work for 52 weeks or more. What can we do about that picture? Because of the shortage of time, I shall concentrate on those who have been without a job for more than 13 weeks.
When a person has been unable after 13 weeks to get a job in his own skill or to get the job that he particularly wants, he should not receive any more unemployment pay unless he is prepared to take any other reasonable job that is available. The test will have to be carried out by the local officers, because we cannot allow for appeals. It means that the unemployed must be prepared to move their job or even their home.
Most of the young people in Thanet go away because there are no jobs for them. They have always done so and I have always said that we should let them go to where there is work. We must have greater mobility of labour and more training in new skills and we must encourage the opportunities for people to change their occupations.
If young people in Thanet ask me where they can find jobs, I tell them that they can help to pick fruit in Faversham, they can work in hotels or they can do gardening work. Workers are wanted in those areas, though perhaps for only eight or 10 hours a week. There is a lot of moonlighting, but some young people do two or three jobs and, in the round, are well paid.
I see no reason why someone should not work for 20 hours a week at a skilled job and also have an unskilled job, which will help. For example, I


employ a chap who was Army chef. I said that he had to do more than that for me and would have to work outside as well. He agreed and I said "All right, you do your chef work and then you get out and buckle down in the garden and do odd jobs". That is an example of the changing face of employment.
Last week a lady in Thanet advertised for a gardener She had 60 replies and interviewed 16 applicants. They were all on social security. Not one had a job and none had made an effort to get a job as anything other than a gardener. That is absurd. Half of the population are gardeners. In Thanet we have nothing but gardeners. Every woman is a first-class gardener and many know a great deal about gardening. There is no reason why a gardener should not be able to do another job or train for another skill.
We must see that those who have been unemployed for a long time change their occupation and take whatever work is available. We should encourage young people to have the discipline of some kind of work from the earliest part of their life.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I shall not follow the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Thanet West (Mr. Rees-Davies). His claim that the points that he put forward were made in a non-partisan and non-political way belies credibility. If there were thousands of jobs available in certain sectors, and thousands of unemployed gardeners who did not wish to take them, that would be one thing. The situation, however, is that the unemployment rate is not only staggeringly high but that the number of vacancies is going down constantly.
According to the figures published yesterday, there are 165,000 vacancies in the United Kingdom. This means that 10 people out of work are chasing every job. I cannot see that this situation provides much scope for the hon. and learned Gentleman's theory. The effect in an area such as my constituency, which has suffered generation upon generation of depopulation, when the best of the young people are asked to go away, can be devastating.
I shall not quote many figures, but I must place some on the record. Unem

ployment in Wales has now reached 99,000 and vacancies are down 15 per cent. Only some 6,000 jobs seasonally adjusted, are available in Wales. There are 14 people chasing every job. The projection from the department of economics at Bangor last month stated that unemployment in Wales, in a couple of years, will be up to 170,000, or 14 per cent. on an optimistic set of assumptions. On pessimistic assumptions, the figure was put at nearer 30 per cent.
All parts of Wales are hit. In the north-east of Wales the figures show unemployment of 12·1 per cent. in Wrexham and 14·5 per cent in Shotton. In the north-west of Wales in my own part. Arfon the figure is 10·4 per cent., and in Anglesey, 12·4 per cent. In the southwest of Wales, places like Cardigan have 13·3 per cent. unemployment, and Lampeter 13 per cent., while in the south-east of Wales, Ebbw Vale has 14·6 per cent. unemployment, Bargoed 13·4 per cent. and Aberdare 11·1 per cent. In every corner of Wales the problem exists. Of the total number of unemployed, 37 per cent. are aged under 25. Within that group, over 30 per cent have been unemployed for over six months. This will have social effects that will hit Wales hard.
Against that background, we are critical of the changes that the Government have made in the development area status for Wales. We do not pretend that the status, in itself, will solve the problems, but development area status in Wales has been reduced in such a way that many parts of mid-Wales, with high unemployment levels, receive no greater benefits than Kent. This is a disgrace at a time of increasing unemployment.
I should like to deal with the steps that need to be taken to meet that situation. I hope that the House will take as read some of the remarks that I would normally have made about the parity of the pound, interest rates and import controls. There is not much point in repeating remarks already made by other hon. Members. I want to concentrate on the logic of the Government, and perhaps of previous Governments, that it is acceptable to pay people to be out of work, when it would be easier to pay people to do useful work. If all the work in the community had been done, and if people were living in acceptable housing in an environment that had been tidied


up to accord with the standard that should prevail, and if old people's homes were properly manned and there were adequate numbers of nurses in the hospitals, it would be possible to consider a reduction in working hours and a lower retirement age.
All around us, however, work that needs to be done stares us in the face. People are living in inadequate houses that need to be repaired. There are married people on housing waiting lists, with the husband perhaps living with his parents, and the wife with hers, and the children playing ping-pong between them. The condition of roads needs to be improved and many inner city areas remain squalid and need to be cleared up. Additional facilities are needed in rural areas.
Much of this necessary work lies within the construction sector, which has been especially hard hit by unemployment. The challenge is to bring this mismatch situation to a more fruitful outcome and ensure that unemployed building workers now living on the dole can be given work on the houses, roads and facilities that are needed.
We should look at unemployment not only in terms of the £1,000 million to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) referred, in a constructive speech. Even more important is the available manpower that is being wasted. The wealth and standard of living of any community must be related to the number of people in productive employment and the total population that they have to support. If we accept the position that more people must be made unemployed as a direct consequence of Government policy, the overall standard of living of the community will inevitably go down. The fundamental problems facing the community cannot be solved by putting more people on the dole.
The difference in the cost to the State of a married man, with a wife and two children, being out of work or in work is put at £80 per week. On the one hand there is the loss of national insurance and income tax payments, and on the other the paying of unemployment and supplementary benefits. Would it not be preferable to pay £100—admittedly involving more public expenditure—with something to show for it in the building

of houses, schools and hospitals and fulfilling all the other needs that exist?
I should like to give an example in coal mining. There has been some discussion in Wales about the closure of coal mines that are admittedly difficult to operate. Because of the nature of the seams, they cannot be automated. They have been running at a loss. If those coal mines are closed, there is little possibility that a miner aged 50 will find alternative work, yet that mine contains a source of energy. Once that mine is closed, it will be written off and lost for ever. Are we saying that we prefer to pay coal miners for doing nothing, while at the same time a source of energy is lost for ever?
The logic of the situation belies credibility. It would surely be more useful, in the interests of the community as a whole, when there is no alternative work, for the miners to carry on working, albeit at a loss in straight financial terms, because at the end of the day there would be something to show for it. There would be the coal that had been dug and the use of asset that would otherwise have gone to waste. That is the logic with which Parliament and successive Governments have failed to come to grips.
The same situation can be seen in the way that local government employees are being put out of work. Ministers are urging local authorities to put people on the dole when there is no alternative work available for them. Roadworkers will be doing nothing, when roads could be improved. Teachers will be doing nothing when they could be helping to bring down class numbers. Housing repair workers will be doing nothing, when houses need to be repaired. Would it not be more sensible for these people to be put into work than accept that they should be paid for doing nothing?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest. They are parallel with what I was saying. The essence of his argument is that the teachers and those he has mentioned would be prepared, if unemployed, not to work as teachers or in an occupation in which they had previously been engaged but to switch jobs. It would pay the nation for that to happen rather than have to pay supplementary benefit.

Mr. Wigley: I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but


these other jobs are not available. There is unemployment and no job availability in so many sectors. When a teacher has been trained for two or three years to do a professional job, and when class sizes can number 35 to 40, the logic must be for the teachers to use their talents in areas for which they have been trained. In the long term, perhaps we should advise fewer people to go into teaching if there is to be less demand—which I do not accept. However, certainly with construction workers, there is work that needs to be done.
It would appear that the Welfare State has gone wrong almost from its inception along these lines. We have been compensating people for being out of work rather than squaring up to the necessity of finding work within the community. I shall not follow the line of talking about compulsory or forced work. I am talking about the concept that we should try to ensure that there is work available, rather than say "What-ever the problem, we shall compensate people and that is enough"—because it is not enough.
These people and their families will suffer, and there will be social consequences from their being out of work, particularly the young. Therefore, I should like to see the Welfare State reconsidered along the lines of moving towards a position in which there is work being provided to the extent that there is work that needs to be done in our community. Until such time as it can be shown that there is not work that needs to be done, that should be the principle that we should follow in seeking a solution.
We hear that there is a problem in every country. I cannot help but look with envy at countries such as Norway, which has a 1·2 per cent. unemployment rate, at Switzerland, with 0·2 per cent., at Austria, with 2·1 per cent., and at Sweden with 1·8 per cent. Those are figures from this month's edition of the Employment Gazette. It is possible for some communities to overcome the problems. I would have hoped that it would be possible to do so in ours.
I come to the problem in schools, about which we have heard. Morale is low in schools when teachers have to teach children and encourage them to go

on to apprenticeships and take examinations, and the children say "What for? There are no jobs for us when we have finished doing that." It is a heartbreaking situation. I met some teachers only two or three weeks ago who put that point to me.
Side by side with the need to give incentives in schools, there is a need to put more money and resources into the development of careers advice. That is relevant to this debate. Careers advice is the Cinderella of the subjects dealt with in our schools. So often we find that it is the old PT master who has gone over the top who is told to do careers as a sideline, with no training or background for it and very few resources to do it. As a result, in some areas, in some very limited jobs, there are mismatches.
In my area, for instance, there are jobs going with the water authorities, technical jobs, and some technical jobs are available in the social services, which the children have not been advised to consider as careers. As a result, people are brought in from outside to do those jobs and the children who could have been trained for them do not get the opportunity in their own community. That is one of the problems of career advice, as is starting the advice at a sufficiently early enough age and not leaving it to the fifth or sixth form. It should be started at the age of 11, or even earlier.
I commend one other scheme that is being undertaken in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). It is a junior enterprise experiment, following an American pattern, where a group of children are given the opportunity to start running a commercial venture themselves in school—in this case, I think that they are making lamps, and so on, in the form and then marketing them—and at the end of the year seeing whether they have succeeded in selling these and whether they have made a profit or a loss. They are at least getting commercial ideas into their heads in school in a way that has not been done generally, certainly in the schools in Wales. There is room for that side to be developed. It may be that only one out of 30 children gets a direct benefit that he will follow up as an adult, but if only one out of 30 started a project himself that would be well worth while


in terms of new ventures in the community, and the employment so created.
The problem of youth unemployment is depressing and worrying. It is right that the House should apply itself to it tonight. I only hope that, as a consequence, solutions will be forthcoming.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: I recognise the sincerity of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) about the unemployment situation in Wales, notably youth unemployment. However, I suggest to him that the main remedy which, as I understood it, he was suggesting, would lead to a rigidly directed economy. Where such a course has been followed in other parts of the world it has both extinguished liberty and not led to a genuine economic prosperity. I also suggest that the examples which he gave of successful economies with low unemployment, such as Switzerland and Norway, are not those which have followed the sort of policies that he was suggesting as a solution for our problems.
We have a problem which has been with us for very many years. It is not a question of a change of Government last May or a question of the introduction of what some people, mostly on the Opposition Benches, would call monetarism. It is a problem which for many years has been with us in the British economy. Several times, again from both sides of the House, we have been reminded of that well-known quotation from the utterance of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)—that one man's wage rise is another man's place in the dole queue.
I suggest that that analysis, with which I basically agree, was also put to an important conference, the Labour Party conference. I offer this not in any partisan spirit. I agree that snarling across the Chamber is not what we should be about this evening when dealing with this very important problem.
I offer this as an analysis which I believe is correct and remains valid. As I understand it, it was an analysis presented by Mr. Peter Jay, who, after completing it, was translated as Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador in Washington. It was pronounced by the right hon. Member for Cardiff. South-

East (Mr. Callaghan) to the Labour Party conference in 1976. He said:
We must ask ourselves unflinchingly what is the cause of high unemployment. Quite simply and unequivocally, it is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce. There are no scapegoats. This is as true in a mixed economy under a Labour Government as it is under capitalism or under communism.
I do not think that anyone could have identified the major contributory cause better than the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly other causes are referred to. The alleged lack of investment in the British economy is a worry, but it is an exaggerated worry. It is interesting to see the report produced by the right hon. Member for Huyton. After three years' hard labour, he apparently confirms that the investment strike of which we have heard so much is not the primary cause of our unemployment problems.
Indeed, the shortage of investment where it occurs is the effect of our industrial problems, not the cause of them. The trouble is that the rate of return on capital invested in manufacturing enterprises is abysmally low. In years gone by it was anything up to a 10 per cent. return. Now we are talking of about 2 per cent., whereas any investor, be it the State or a private investor, can take his money and get 12 or 13 per cent. in many other ways. Therefore, it cannot be an investment shortage.
Indeed, in those industries which have been able, because they are nationalised, to ignore—albeit temporarily—the natural laws of economics, and which have been able to make the water run uphill and to invest against the grain, we have found that that, too, has not produced the solution. It has not solved the unemployment problem. As an example, I mention the steel industry. Over the last 10 years it has had thousands of millions of pounds invested in it. Yet we are closing many steelworks, on understandable economic grounds.
Therefore, investment is not the problem. Nor does it lie in one of the other allegations which tend to be made against British industry. It is not the quality of management. Who would say that management in British industry was perfect? Who would say that of management anywhere? British management, as we see it in this country and


when it exports, stands up perfectly well with that of other countries. Likewise, when allegedly high-powered overseas management comes to operate here it runs into the same problem.
Basically we come back to the prescription of the Leader of the Opposition, who said that for many years we have been paying ourselves more than the value of the goods we produce. Never has that been more true than in the past two years. During each of those years earnings rose by 5 per cent. more than prices. In the 12 months to 31 March this year the tax and prices index increased by 17·6 per cent. Yet average earnings increased by over 20 per cent.
In this difficult economic time, what were our competitors doing? What were the other industrial nations of the OECD doing? Generally speaking, they had a lower inflation rate than ours, but, more than that, they settled for an increase in average wages lower than their own inflation. The net result is that over the past 12 months the competitiveness of British industry has declined by a factor of about 20 per cent. The effect of that is obvious. Markets are denied and jobs are lost. That is our present experience.
I shall refer shortly to another factor resulting from this great wage pressure and the reason why that wage pressure has cone about. I do not wish to detain the House for long. Another influence is the pressure of money available in our system. May I offer the House one fact? In the financial year 1978–79 commercial bank lending to companies ran at an average rate of £500 million a month. In the financial year 1979–80 it increased by no less than 50 per cent. Average lending went from £500 million to £750 million a month. Despite high interest rates, despite pressures on liquidity and the problem that that has caused for investment, cash flow and many other things, companies felt obliged to borrow because they were locked into a vice by the pressures created by the British system.
With the high public sector borowing requirement joining forces with pressure from the commercial sector to raid the quantity of money available, interest rates have inevitably risen. Those are the causes of high interest rates. We are locked into a circle which may at the

moment seem vicious and it may seem impossible for us to break out of it.
One or two solutions are on offer. Protectionism is increasingly attractive to the Opposition parties. It is certainly attractive to the Labour Party. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland dealt with this issue admirably when he pointed to the fact that in our economy—which is more dependent than that of any other trading nation on overseas trade—nearly one-third of our GDP is exports. Japan has less than half of that in terms of expenditure of GDP. We simply could not tolerate the retaliation against us. Given the industrial and labour relations background against which British industry has to operate we would simply postpone the problem. I have seen that happen overseas. After we had put up the barrier, would there be reform, modification and change? No, there would not. We would relax. We would get softer and softer and become more and more inefficient. Clearly the road to protection is the road to further problems, to further unemployment and to further economic debilitation.
Another possibility offered is that of further devaluation. How we effect devaluation is a matter of debate. The proposal is that we should tell the world not to buy our pound at $2·35 or $2·30—which is what buyers wish to pay—and say that we will sell the pound at $2·10 or $2·15. Whether we could devise a mechanism for that is one thing; whether we should devise that mechanism is another.
Let us recall, for example, the famous devaluation of 1967 when the present Leader of the Opposition was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not say this in any partisan way, but that devaluation did not produce the answer. It softened us up yet again and weakened British industry. So that route is not the answer. It would also lead us to inflation.
The same is true of yet another solution that is offered which, sadly, has been hinted at by some of my hon. Friends as well as being trumpeted by Opposition Members—more public spending.
Our present public sector borrowing requirement is running this year at £9·8 billion. That borrowing will probably be of the same order at the end of the current financial year, and if we went over


that figure we should be straight back into inflation—not the inflation we are now dealing with, but hyper-inflation which would destroy our society more certainly than the horrible threat of unemployment, which I do not minimise.
Labour Members are fond of quoting John Maynard Keynes in defence of what I call their irresponsible financial policies. They often forget the importance that Keynes gave to the factor of money and inflation. I offer the House this quotation from Keynes:
There is no subtler, nor surer, means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction and does it in a manner which no one man in a million is able to diagnose.
That is the problem we are wrestling with. We must continue to wrestle with it because if we turn back we shall have lost our last chance to put Britain right. We must persevere with these policies.
I spoke about a potentially vicious circle. I believe that we face a great challenge because we have the potential of North Sea oil. That potential must give us the opportunity to lift ourselves into an economy and a society ready to face, in industrial terms, the 1980s and the 1990s.
We have a responsibility not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world to carry out adjustments, modernisation and advances in technology. That is a duty not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world. That brings us back to the terms of the North-South dialogue—the Brandt report. I commend that report to Opposition Members who, understandably, show legitimate concern for the economic development of the South. However, at the same time, most of them seem to find it possible intellectually to suggest that we put up the trade shutters.
The developing world would far rather have open trading than almost any amount of aid. The developing nations wish to trade with us. The way for that to happen is for us to move into technologically advanced industries. If we are to do that, we must look again at our trade union relations. That is why the Employment Bill is so important. That measure is correctly named and although, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for Employment knows, I have considerable misgivings about the adequacy of the Bill and whether it has been introduced at the right time, I believe that it is moving in the right direction. It is moving in the direction of employment.
We must bring our trade unions into the 1980s before we can bring our industry into the 1980s. Therefore, any measure—and here I include the Employment Bill—which can ensure that trade unions are given a much more responsible leadership than they often manifest at the moment can be only of benefit.
I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will join us in recognising that the fundamental causes of unemployment, to which they referred in years past, still exist. We shall not solve the unemployment problem unless we tackle those causes. A vital element in tackling them must be trade union reform.

Mr. Giles Radice: I shall not pursue the points made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) in his general defence of the Government's economic policies, other than to express my surprise that supporters of free collective bargaining should be complaining about wage inflation in the way that he did.
We have heard a couple of constructive speeches from the Government Benches—one from the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the other from the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr Madel). The Secretary of State for Scotland, however, advanced a negative case. He said that unemployment had been worse under the Labour Government. It certainly rose under the Labour Government, but it was falling in the last two years of that Administration's period of office, and since the Conservatives have come to power that trend has been decisively reversed. The figure has risen by 300,000 in a year.
The second point that the Secretary of State made was that inflation had to be squeezed out of the economy, and that, if unemployment resulted, that was too bad. It is true that the Government have squeezed the economy with high interest rates, cuts in public spending and an over-valued pound. That has created a


recession about which the CBI is now complaining strongly. Of course, the recession has also created much of the unemployment that we are debating tonight.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: No, not just at the moment. However, inflation has doubled in the last year and the prospects for its reduction look most unpromising.
The truth is that the unemployment figures are appalling, especially for young people, as almost every speaker in the debate has demonstrated. They are particularly bad for youth and for regions like the North, Merseyside, Scotland and Wales. We have heard the voices from those regions in the debate. The figures will get much worse.
The Secretary of State for Scotland argued that youth unemployment always rose at about this time, and that is so. There is a summer peak of school leavers. However, youth unemployment has risen threefold since the early 1970s, and the prospects, as any of the Manpower Services Commission regional offices will say, are worsening almost daily. The prospect of finding jobs and of absorbing youth unemployment are deteriorating every day.
Regional differences have been widening markedly since the middle 1970s. Regions like the North, Scotland and Wales have much higher levels of unemployment than has the South. The problem is that the Government have taken unemployment as very much a second order problem. They have greatly underestimated its impact, partly for political reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) explained, the Government feel that if they can give redundancy payments to the unemployed that might keep them quiet. It might be that since most of the Conservative majorities came from the South and the Midlands the Government feel that unemployment in the other areas will not matter too much politically.
The economic consequences of unemployment are most severe, however. There is the problem of lost output, the loss of tax revenue and the fact that unemployment increases the level of public spending—currently by £1·5 billion. There is also the impact on individuals. The report

of the Manpower Services Commission put it very well when it said
It cannot be emphasised too often that for the great majority of people unemployment is a painful, depressing and debilitating experience, and the longer it lasts the worse it gets.
There is also the impact on particular communities. When there are large-scale redundancies, as in Consett, with perhaps 30 or 40 per cent. of male workers unemployed, the situation is disastrous. In parts of Sunderland, with the cutback in shipbuilding, 17 per cent. of male workers are out of a job. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has his problems on Merseyside, as we know; and indeed the Select Committee on Employment has visited the area.
There is, then, the impact on the regions. If 9 per cent. of a region's workers are unemployed and job prospects are daily getting worse, with more redundancies and fewer vacancies, that creates a depressing effect upon the morale of the whole region. That is the impact that unemployment is beginning to have on our country.
What needs to be done? It is partly a question of economic policy. This debate is not the occasion to rehearse general economic arguments, but the Government must stop squeezing the economy, bring down interest rates and do something about the overvalued pound. I argue strongly for an incomes policy, and there is also a case for some selective import controls.
I wish to move on now to examine the Manpower Services Commission programmes. The youth opportunities programmes must be expanded. The Secretary of State has said many times that he has expanded them, and I accept that, but he will have to expand them much more if he is to meet the needs that exist. If 30 or 40 per cent. of young people are having great difficulty getting jobs, inevitably he will have to go much further.
Of course, the programmes are no substitute for permanent employment, and no one says that they are. But they are tremendously valuable in that they get young people off the dole queues. They give them something valuable to do and they give them self-respect, as anyone who has seen the programmes will know. These young people are being prepared for jobs and it is no accident that 70 per


cent. of those who engage in the programmes subsequently find them. They are not locked into the hopelessness of long spells of unemployment.
In areas of particularly high unemployment, like Sunderland and Merseyside, when young people leave the youth opportunity programmes they go back to the dole. To get away from that, the programmes must be expanded for up to two years.
Something must be done about training, because a serious situation is developing in which employers and the Government are simultaneously cutting it back. That trend must be reversed. If industry is not prepared to do the training, the Government and the community must step in. If they do not, employment prospects will inevitably worsen. Instead of going for training, young people will go for jobs requiring less skill. The less able young people will then face greater competition and will be pushed out on to the dole as the process filters through the labour market.
Secondly, there will be a reduction in essential skills, which will permanently damage the country's economic prospects. I am sure that the Government do not want that—or, at least, I hope they do not.

Mr. Needham: I should like to clarify one point. The Government, through the MSC, are giving as much support to the industrial training boards this year and next year as in the past. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is not the case, and that the training budget is being cut back even further?

Mr. Radice: If we take the period to 1983, the programme is being cut back. If employers cut back on their training needs, the amount that the community provides must be expanded.
The Secretary of State for Scotland was very disingenuous about the long-term unemployed. He knows that he has cut back the plan from 36,000 to 12,000. But that is not good enough, when there will shortly be 500,000 long-term unemployed people.
The temporary short-time working compensation scheme has been particularly valuable in areas as the North and

Merseyside. Firms now want the qualification period to be extended from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. That point was made to the Select Committee on Employment at Newcastle, both by the Engineering Employers Federation and by the TUC's northern region.
We must not forget regional policy. I was glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham made a powerful plea for the development of regional policy. We must step up regional incentives. We must have greater employment subsidies for the regions, and a large public investment programme. We must also give more help to smaller firms in the regions.
Some Conservative Members believe in the concept of one nation. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham is part of that strand in the Conservative Party, and I have always believed that the Secretary of State for Employment is also part of it. But the Government are rapidly creating two nations, one nation which is well-off, employed and by and large living in the South, and the other nation which is less well-off, increasingly unemployed, and by and large living in the North.
The Government think they can get away with this division of the country, but they greatly underestimate the gravity of the problem, and the temper of our people. In the end, the British people will simply not tolerate mass unemployment and possibly social unrest in some areas. I believe that they will reject that approach, and reject a Government who have so disastrously divided the nation.

Mr. Peter Hordern: >: I agree with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) about the gravity of the present unemployment position. Like him, I do not think that there is any prospect of an early recovery. It is of no benefit to the unemployed to tell them that unemployment has been brought about by the significant increase in the price of world oil; nor is it of much comfort to them to say that other developing countries, such as France. Italy and the United States, have a higher level of unemployment.
It is my belief—I hope that I am wrong—that the present level of unemployment is likely to increase for a measurable period before it gets any better. Despite the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about improvements that might be made in the youth opportunities programme, and despite other measures which Governments of both parties have taken, at heart the House will agree that those measures are at best palliatives to what every school leaver wants—the reasonable assurance of a well-paid job in a developing economy. At present, that prospect is not open to him.
This matter is not new. We have had many debates on unemployment. Some hon. Members think that because unemployment rises as a result of substantial increase in wages an incomes policy is the best antidote, but we have tried incomes policies ad nauseam, and while there might be improvements for a short time, unemploment is much worse afterwards. In 1975–76, when wage increases were up by 26 per cent., the number of unemployed rose from 600,000 to 1·2 million in one year—a figure which the Leader of the Opposition ignored at Question Time yesterday. It seems that to the Leader of the Opposition statistics started with his Premiership in 1967. I do not know whether the years 1975 and 1976 will be ruled by the Labour Party to be non-events, but those are the figures.
During the last six months to May, wage increases have averaged 20 per cent. as a whole, and there cannot be much doubt that unemployment will increase substantially as a consequence. The solution is not to be found in incomes policies—statutory or voluntary. Experience shows that they only make matters worse.
I was not clear about the proposals of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), but he complained that interest rates were too high. He mentioned the easing of interest rates and giving a boost to the economy by various measures, but we have tried them all. We have tried cheap money, artificially depressed interest rates, and subsidising the nationalised industries. That created more rapid inflation than otherwise would have been the case, and I

do not think that that is a road down which we should travel.
In recent years the private sector has had to bear an increasing weight because of the development of the public sector. I am aware that that will not be generally acceptable as a thesis, but the number of people employed in the public sector between 1961 and 1978 increased by 1½ million, and at the same time the private, wealth-producing sector declined by 1 million. The number of people employed in the Health Service between 1961 and 1978 increased from 575,000 to 1·175 million. The number of people employed in the education service who neither lecture nor teach is now 717,000. Most of those people are part-time workers, but that number has risen by 319,000 in the last 15 years.
My right hon. Friends are making an admirable effort to contain the size of the Civil Service, but the same cannot be said of the weight of expenditure borne by the private sector for the increase in the number of people employed by local authorities and in the Health Service throughout the country. It is not simply a question of the size and number of public and civil servants. It is also the method by which they are paid to which I want to draw atention.
While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is present, I cannot help but ask why it is necessary for his Department to employ 17,000 people to pay out employment benefit while the DHSS employs 86,000 people to pay supplementary benefit to the families of those who are unemployed? Why cannot the two services be combined? If one is unemployed, one does not mind where the money comes from. I do not understand why such a large number of people should be employed within my right hon. Friend's Department in order to pay out those benefits. I should be grateful if he would reply to that point. It seems to me that the Government are trying to run a free enterprise economy within a public sector framework which would be much more typical of a Socialist State.
Another factor which makes the situation much worse is public sector pay. In 1955, when the Priestley Commission on the Civil Service recommended, for the first time, fair comparison with outside


staffs as the basis for public sector pay, it did so at a time when the economy was in a very different state from what it is now. In that year, national output increased by 3·3 per cent., wages by 6·6 per cent. and prices by 6·8 per cent. There was a fairly close correspondence between wages and output. Output is now declining, wages are increasing by 18 per cent., and, including Clegg, by rather more than that in the public sector. In addition, twice as many people are now employed in the public sector as there were in 1955.
When Priestley recommended comparability, it was to take account of differences in other conditions of service outside the public sector, but that is not happening now. For example, I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced a special inquiry into the level of public service pensions and the benefit to public servants of index-linked pensions. but what about job security in the public service? It is a great deal better than it is in the private sector, particularly now.
Therefore, what should be the basis of public sector pay? I think that it should be to pay the rate, whatever that is, that will secure good and conscientious public servants. There should not be comparability on a basis that cannot properly be compared with that of the private sector. As it is, the cost of pay for a swollen public sector must now be met by borrowing, which is why we have such high interest rates at present.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said that people in the public sector should effectively be paid what the market requires they should be paid. At present, the public sector is very much dominated by centralised bargaining. Therefore, someone who lives in a part of the country that requires a large wage gets the same as someone living in another part of the country where only a small wage needs to be paid. Would it not be better if, in arranging its pay, the public sector had different levels of pay for different parts of the country which respected the market situation in those areas?

Mr. Hordern: My hon. Friend is right. Ideally, that is what I should like to see, but I recognise that there will be a great deal of difficulty before that excellent

situation arises. The point that I am trying to make is that by any means of comparison that one likes to take—either growth in the public service over a number of years or by comparison with the numbers employed in the public service in overseas countries—far too many are employed in the public service. That is why sterling is so high at present, because in competition with the private sector the Government need to borrow so much money. Consequently, the level of sterling is much higher than it would otherwise be.
As every hon. Member knows, that is having a serious effect on industry which manufactures fairly basic products. This week I met the managing director of Delta Metal, which has a number of factories in constituencies throughout the country. Its factory in Crawley in my constituency manufactures brass taps. There cannot be anything more basic than a brass tap. The number of imports of brass taps has doubled in one year, and the share of the market that the Italians now take is 13½ per cent. compared with about 6 per cent. just a year ago. The reason is simple. The movement as between stirling and the lire has been 20 per cent. in the course of a year. Again, the reason for that is the high level of Government borrowing, which has kept interest rates up by far more than they would otherwise be and pushed sterling up too.
I agree with what was said about the serious position in the North and North-West. I should like to offer this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I do not believe that the position will improve early or easily.
If one looks at the type of industries in the North and North-West, one realises that it is difficult to see why those industries should make an early or rapid recovery. I wonder whether we should not now review all our regional incentives. The fact is that if we abolished all the capital allowances and stock appreciation we could have a rate of corporation tax below 20 per cent.
I believe that it is wrong to perpetuate, continue and elaborate the number of regional aids that exist, instead of adopting a much simpler system of tax relief for companies, be they manufacturing or service companies. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at what has happened in


Southern Ireland, where large firms have been attracted from overseas because the tax system is so simple and there is a flat rate 10 per cent. corporation tax for 10 years.
I believe that the Government ought seriously to look at that system. We shall not recover unless we are able to attract substantial firms from overseas into this country. That would be a much better and quicker way of reviving industry and enterprise, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that 12 hon. Members who have been here all day still wish to speak. There is just over an hour left for Back-Bench contributions, and I hope that hon. Members will keep their speeches short.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: In his concluding remarks the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) referred to Southern Ireland. I want specifically to refer to Northern Ireland.
For many years, from 1920 until 1972, there was in this House a convention which prevented Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies from debating unemployment. That convention existed because at that time there was the Stormont Parliament, which allegedly existed to deal with problems such as unemployment. It was a very cosy arrangement for hon. Members which suited them very well, because the attitude was that all the major issues which affected the people of Northern Ireland were matters for Stormont. Consequently, this House built up an atmosphere of ignorance about the real tragedy of unemployment and social deprivation in Northern Ireland.
Allied to that ignorance was an atmosphere in which Northern Ireland Members were reluctant to take part in what they termed a national debate, such as that which is taking place now. However, since the abolition of Stormont in 1972, it is the duty of this House—not the duty of anyone in Northern Ireland—to look into every aspect of the Northern Ireland unemployment figures.
Only today, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made

an appeal for the 12 Northern Ireland representatives to meet in Northern Ireland to discuss the unemployment figures. I believe that that is an erroneous attitude and that this House must be made aware of the terrible tragedy of unemployment in Northern Ireland. It is in this House that decisions must be taken to alleviate the agony and distress.
I have listened today to many hon. Members, particularly on the Labour Benches, expressing real concern about the social effect of unemployment on our young people if the present trend is allowed to continue. I do not have to think of what that social effect may be. It has been with me in Northern Ireland for the past 10 years.
The unemployment figure in Northern Ireland is 73,000. There has been an increase of 13,000 since the Government took office in May 1979. That increase was brought about by a combination of factors—the raging doctrinaire approach of the Government to their policies, the public expenditure cuts and the number of bankruptcies. Those appear to be continuing trends. Trade unionists in Northern Ireland are aware of all the trends. They have predicted that within two years unemployment in that small area of the United Kingdom may reach the awful figure of 100,000.
Many hon. Members have referred to the outlook for youngsters who see no possibility of finding a job. In Northern Ireland 14,000 youngsters under the age of 19 are on the unemployment register. There is absolutely no hope within the foreseeable future of their finding jobs. If that happened in other parts of Britain many would think that the youngsters would become socially disoriented, disenchanted or rebels against society. The 14,000 unemployed youngsters in Northern Ireland have grown up in an atmosphere that would not be understood by youngsters living in England, Scotland or Wales. They are 16, 17, 18 and 19 years of age. The oldest were 5, 6 or 7-year-olds when British troops were first brought into Northern Ireland in 1969.
Every day those youngsters have seen the British military on their streets. They have been subjected to personal searches as they walked through the streets of their cities, towns and villages. Both Catholics and Protestants have been


awakened by the knock of the soldiers at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and they have seen their parents and homes searched. That is bound to create an anti-social atmosphere in the minds of those youngsters. Now that they have left school, hoping to find work and to earn money to lead a normal social life, they find that the prospects are nil. How much more likely is it that they will become rebels against society?
Let us consider the ages of the youngsters sentenced to imprisonment and those already in prison. I do not have the figures, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be able to tell the House that many of the youngsters who have engaged in violence, on both sides of the political and religious divide, were 16, 17 or 18 years of age when they committed the acts for which they are now serving terms of imprisonment.
I understand that tomorrow morning the Cabinet will meet to approve a constitutional proposal for a solution to the Northern Ireland problem. The Minister, if he deigns to reply to some of my observations, will not be able to tell me in all honesty that the economic position, the number of unemployed and the social deprivation in Northern Ireland will be a large part of the Cabinet's deliberations. We are told that those are matters for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They are not matters for him—they are matters for the Government and the House.
The children to whom I have referred who have no prospect of employment are already socially disaffected. It will take many years, even in a period when there is some hope of employment, to bring them back into society.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the social effect on those unemployed for less than six months, more than six months, less than one year or more than one year. In Northern Ireland people are signing the unemployment register for 37 years. They are signing the register for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and up to 40 years. It is not a question of being unemployed for less than six months, less than a year or more than a year. Is it any wonder that, with the unemployment figures over the years,

there have been the troubles that we have experienced in Northern Ireland?
I am not sure whether this happens in any other part of Britain, but there are people in Northern Ireland who sign the unemployment register every three months, every six months or every year. That is an indication that they will never be afforded the opportunity to find a job. This morning I read in a Northern Ireland newspaper that Ford in Northern Ireland is to pay off 150 workers—

Mr. James Dempsey: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would develop his argument a little further. Will he advise me why those people sign the register only every three months, every six months or every year?

Mr. Fitt: Those facts were given to me by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in answer to a series of Parliamentary questions. It is an indication that those signing the unemployment register have no possibility of finding employment. They do not have to attend the employment exchange to collect their money every week—it is sent to them by Girobank. That practice reduces the dole queue. They are written off. They are rejects from society.
One can imagine the psychological effect on a human being who is desperately searching for a job—who has tried his hardest to get a job—when he goes to the employment exchange one day and is told "You do not have to come here again. We will send your dole to you by Girobank. You can sign the register every three months." That person is being condemned to live in an atmosphere that should not be regarded as acceptable in any part of Britain.
I have already said that since the Government took office in 1979 unemployment in Northern Ireland has increased by 13,000. The Belfast shipyard is in danger once again. I have absolutely no doubt that the pragmatic and monetarist approach of the Government, if and when they have to decide between adhering to their policies and dismantling the Belfast shipyard, will mean that they will decide in favour of their policies.
I have made a special plea for Northern Ireland. I know that many regions in Britain would make exactly the same


plea. That is why there is competition between areas, regions and hon. Members. The hon. Member who represents Ford in England and the hon. Member who represents Ford in Northern Ireland will both look after the interests of their constituents. There is even personal hostility and animosity building up between hon. Members in the interests of their constituents. That should never occur, and should not be tolerated.
I am not sure of the answer to the Northern Ireland problem. Tomorrow morning, the Cabinet will consider the constitutional proposals. No one can guarantee success.
To consider the problems of Northern Ireland in a purely constitutional sense—whether it should be Northern Ireland as it is at present, amalgamated with the Republic, or a federal State—is not the answer. The answer to the problem in Northern Ireland is to create jobs and to do away with social deprivation. That is the first priority. After that, all the other constitutional difficulties will erase themselves. The first object of the Government must be to try to increase the standard of living and to do away with the abject agony, distress and poverty which has for so long existed in Northern Ireland and been aggravated by the Government since May last year.
It seems to me that Government supporters are acutely embarrassed by the unemployment figures which were announced yesterday. We are told that this is a time not to snarl, sneer or criticise the state of the economy and the unemployment of our constituents, but, that there should be a bipartisan approach. I have never heard such a ridiculous argument. The Government's policies and actions and approach to economies and every facet of life in the United Kingdom are diametrically opposed to those held by the Opposition. We are asked not to sneer but to make a bipartisan approach. That is not possible. The Government have got the country into a position where 1,600,000 are unemployed because they have carried out their own policies and disregarded the advice given to them by the Opposition.
I repeat that many people, particularly young people, are unemployed in Northern Ireland. I refer specifically to Strabane, Derry, Cookstown, Newry and West Belfast where up to 30 or 40 per

cent. of the male working population is unemployed. Those people are not snarling or sneering. They are cursing the day that the present Government were elected, and they will continue to curse them until they are removed from office.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: First, I should like to refer to the excellent spech by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I have sat opposite him on him on several Committees. His was a profound and interesting speech full of knowledge. It was one of best speeches that we have heard today.
My first experience of unemployment was when I left school and went to my first farm sale. The farm had been let to a new farmer. It was 1932—the terrible depression not only in industrial areas but in the light lands of Norfolk where most of the land was being laid down to stick and dog farming. The labour force included practically the total membership of two small villages—45 families. At the end of the day's sale, three shepherds, two dogs and one boy were employed whereas previously 45 families had been employed. The whole scene in Norfolk and in the rural areas of Suffolk was much the same for several years before and after that. Though we are fortunate in East Anglia in not having the terribly high unemployment figures referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), I know something about the effects of unemployment and I never want to see that sort of thing again.
It seems almost unnecessary, after the speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, to ask that we should get away from the sterile arguments as to which party has done best in creating most unemployment. Each side has made out in the past that the other side was responsible. Yet we know in our hearts that we are all partly responsible. We have all been greedy. We have all asked for more than we have produced—not every individual, but every sector of the community, including hon. Members. We are all partly responsible. What good does reiteration of sterile statistics do for the unemployed school leaver or, for that matter, the skilled man who knows only one trade and whose works has closed?


Nothing. In fact, it makes bitterness worse.
I do not pretend to have any startling suggestions to help to resolve this dangerous situation of high and rising unemployment, but I believe that we must be united over this matter. Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, I still believe that there is room for a bipartisan policy across the Floor of the House and in the nation to try to solve this problem, and the House should give a lead.
I believe that many of our difficulties stem from the popular concept of the Welfare State—a concept which its founders would not understand. They would not recognise it. For many years people have been led to believe—and they do believe—that they are entitled to State help regardless of whether they are the disabled, sick or unemployed whom the schemes are meant to benefit.
People have had dinned into them that they have rights but no responsibilities, that they should have annual salary or wage rises or increased perks whether their firm is prospering or not and that rules and behaviour on both sides of industry, business and the professions, perhaps sensible 25 years ago, should be clung to regardless of what our competitors are doing. These attitudes are as rigid in the legal profession as on the shop floor. I am convinced that they are one reason for our decline. We must modernise not only our plant and machinery, but our minds and thinking about the whole of our society, Government, the Civil Service and, of course, industry.
Another reason for unnecessary unemployment has been the extraordinary slackness of Government policy on immigration over the past few years. For all this period, immigration for our small, over-populated country, with high unemployment, has been far too high. I am referring not to legal immigration for people who are entitled to come here, but to visitors, students and others, who have been allowed to overstay because there is absolutely no way of checking whether they have gone.
Speaking of immigrants, from Iran alone I understand that for the past three years the figures have been over 300,000, over 200,000, and 170,000—the last figure available. How many have

gone home? I have asked, but I cannot be told the answer. It seems probable, in view of the state that Iran is in today, that most of them remain here. They must be working at some job or other, or somehow drawing social security money.
The total in three years from one country is 670,000. Even if only half of that number remain, they are doing jobs which people who are here legally would be glad to do. We have been told how high is the unemployment among the coloured population who are legally here, who were born here and who ought to be helped first. Distasteful though it may be, we must find ways of chasing up those who are here illegally, particularly among those to whom I have referred.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the responsible attitude which he has adopted towards labour relations. We are very fortunate, in these times of stress, to have a man—an old friend of mine—who is patently sincere and whom all trust, even if on occasions many disagree with him. To those of my hon. Friends who disagree, I would say that Acts of Parliament can go only a certain way. They cannot change men's minds or hearts. The hearts and the minds of people have to be won over by patient and sustained effort.
It is soul destroying for young men and women to remain unemployed. I have already spoken of my experience for several years in a rural area. I know how much more depressing it must be in the large towns and conurbations. I ask my right hon. Friend to produce a leaflet explaining in simple language the help that is available to the unemployed youth of this country to enable them to acquire skills and to keep alive the desire to work.
I do not believe that we are born with the desire to work. We have to work in order to earn bread for ourselves and our children and to maintain our families, but once people lose the habit of work it is very difficult to acquire it again. Work is a habit; it is not something that everyone will try to find without some spur.
Will the Secretary of State explain why the job release scheme cannot be expanded? In my part of the world I have had many requests from people


who feel that the job release scheme—which even the previous Government were cutting back—should be extended.
I sincerely hope that the debate will lead to some fresh thinking across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It would appear that a new doctrine has been developed on the Government Benches in the debate today. Now that the Conservatives are in office, they do not want to be snarled at; they want a bipartisan policy. I cannot remember the Conservatives, when my party was in office, adopting bipartisan attitudes towards unemployment. Certainly there were occasions when we the Government were snarled at by the Opposition.
I can understand why Conservative Members are putting forward this new doctrine. It is because the Government are in an impossible position. We now have the highest level of unemployment for 50 years. There is no question but that the system of society supported by the Conservatives—the free enterprise society, which was to solve all our problems, once the free market economy was given full rein—has proved to be an utter disaster. It does not work. We cannot, therefore, be expected on the Opposition Benches to be non-partisan in our approach to the Government's policies.
I want to speak primarily about the awful position now existing in my part of the world, on Merseyside. I referred earlier to an interesting article in today's Liverpool Daily Post. The figures in the article illustrate the difficulty and problem. The article states:
Literally thousands of Merseyside school leavers are chasing a handful of jobs. The exodus began at Easter and yesterday's figures show 11,085 now registered as unemployed—almost 5,000 in the Liverpool careers offices are alone.
That gives us an idea of how many youngsters are unemployed.
The Liverpool Daily Post did a survey of offices in the region and it showed only 23 vacancies on the books. The paper lists the vacancies in the various offices. In Liverpool there were seven vacancies, in Sefton seven, in St. Helens three, in the Wirrall six and in Knowsley there were none. What prospects do our young people have? The situation is desperate. I am not surprised that mug

gings have increased in the streets of Liverpool. I am not surprised that there are more break-ins and similar crimes. What are the youngsters to do? There is no hope for them.
Some youngsters were given the opportunity to work under the Labour Government schemes. However, once they finished they were back on the dole. That makes the situation even worse because the youngsters were given a taste of employment. It is hopeless. We must understand the misery in the homes of ordinary working people in Liverpool.
Sometimes I feel almost ashamed to walk round one working class estate in my constituency. On that estate 30 per cent. of the residents are unemployed. In every other house people are unemployed. What does one say to them? I am not talking about the last year alone. The situation has grown over a period. But, my God, it has become impossible in the last year. That is why the people there voted Labour. They know that under Labour they would have some protection. They knew that the Labour Party was deeply concerned about doing something to deal with the problem—and I was critical of my Government. The people were light to vote Labour. They knew that the policies advocated by the Conservative Party would lead to greater insecurity and hopelessness and to no future for their children. That is proving to be right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that soon in Northern Ireland 100,000 would be unemployed. Already on Merseyside—and that is not the biggest area of Britain—98,000 people are unemployed. Last month 91,000 were unemployed. The figure has jumped by 7,000. We cannot be complacent about that.
When the Prime Minitser returned from her Venice trip she said that the greatest priority was inflation. Of course inflation is important. However, the greatest priority for the Western world, if we are to save it from destruction, is to deal with unemployment. That is the greatest problem. If we cannot solve that problem we shall be faced with social conditions and unrest that will lead to the de-stabilisation of Western Europe and ultimately to the rise of dictatorial Governments. That has been the case in


the past. We need remember only what happened in Nazi Germany. The same conditions are being created. Conservative Members should tell the Prime Minister to make a fundamental change in the Government's policies.
Keynes has been quoted. Jokingly, I said that I preferred Harold Macmillan. The Government have repudiated Macmillan's concepts, although they were Keynesian. It has been said that one cannot spend one's way out of a crisis. However, I would argue that there is no other solution. Conservatives have apparently never heard of Roosevelt. He saved American capitalism from collapse. At that time those involved in big business attacked him. However, he saved them and he saved their system. That is the only way to get out of such a crisis.
The Government do not believe in interventionist policies. They have repudiated them. They do not believe in public expenditure. They are cutting public expenditure and, as a result, daft situations arise. The Minister boastfully told us today that 170,000 civil servants would not be replaced. That means that 170,000 jobs will not be available to young people with a good education. Such opportunities may be lost for ever. It is not only those with a poor education who find it difficult to get a job. Those with a good education will find it increasingly difficult to obtain work. The Government must make a U-turn. I accept the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He said that he did not want to call such a change a U-turn but that he would call it a change of direction".
If the Prime Minister is not prepared to change direction, Conservative Members will have to get rid of her. I say that in the interests of Britain and in the interests of our people. The Government must change their attitude towards public expenditure. They should follow the suggestion that appeared today in The Times. They should give more financial aid to youth opportunity programmes, youth training and so on.
We are witnessing a crisis, because this system of society has outlived itself. Those Conservative Members who have agreed with me so far, will not agree with me now. We live in a capitalist society, and it has failed. That system

cannot solve the problems that we now face. The time has come for us to take a fundamental change of direction. We must change our approach towards unemployment. If we do not do that, the growth of technology will lead to increasing unemployment. We must organise our resources in a sensible way. As far as I am concerned, that means in a Socialist way.

Mr. Richard Needham: I do not mind whether or not we adopt a bipartisan approach. The unemployed are as unimpressed by hearts worn on sleeves as they are by the news that there are 500,000 jobs available as gardeners. We should not continually refer to the breakdown of one system in our society, or look for cataclysmic solutions to the difficulties that we face. If we sit down and are practical and sensible about the problems we may find some solutions.
There are as many people employed in this country now as there were 10 years ago. There are two main difficulties. The first is that the economies of the Western world face grave problems. It does not matter whether Labour is in charge or whether we are. We all face the same difficulties. As has been pointed out tonight, 1·9 million was the number of unemployed quoted in the forward review of the Manpower Services Commission when the last Government were in office. No one suggests for one moment that all these problems are the making of one side or the other. The problems are large and they cut across nations. We must face up to that.
At the end of the day we have roughly the same number of people employed in this country as we had in 1970. Therefore, what is the difference? The difference is that there are 600,000 fewer men and 1 million more women. The main reason for that is that the system of payment to young people who have left school in this country is very different from elsewhere. In our country perhaps 10 or 20 per cent. of those employed who are aged 16, 17 or 18 receive between £40 and £60 a week. Another 30 or 40 per cent. get £23·50 a week under the youth opportunities programme. The remainder find that there is absolutely nothing for them and they end up with £12·75 a week supplementary benefit. Is


that a sensible way of going about our policy?
I know that the House dislikes quotes from the practices of foreign countries, but let us consider what happens in three of the countries that have been mentioned in the debate already today. I refer to Austria, Switzerland and Germany where unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is low. One of the basic reasons for this is that the apprenticeship system in those countries takes on 50 per cent. of those who leave school. In Britain it is only 20 per cent.
I quote to the House the findings of the survey undertaken by the Anglo-German Foundation, whose panel consisted of a broad spectrum of people—and looking down the list I cannot see the name of any paid-up members of the Conservative Party. The findings of that survey were:
Whatever happens to the economy as a whole, we do not believe that, unless major policy changes are made, the employment prospects for Britain's young people are going to improve at all fast. There is evidence of a secular increase in the levels of youth unemployment. There is evidence of employer preference in their recruitment for members of other groups in the community—married women, for example—in front of young people … In contrast to those in Britain young people in the OECD's high-apprenticeship countries—West Germany, Switzerland and Austria—have been suffering much less in the tougher labour market conditions since 1974. The high (and easily expandable) apprenticeship systems in those countries have the effect of partly insulating young people from the labour market and partly taking them out of it. They are partly taken out of it in the precise sense that their remuneration is not mainly the result of collective bargaining.
Let us get this absolutely clear. One of the reasons why we have such high youth unemployment in this country—and I am not putting blame on the trade union movement—is that the unions negotiate on behalf of those in employment for wages which a vast majority of employers cannot afford to pay to young people. The jobs that youngsters of lower attainment levels used to do in years gone by are no longer done because the wage rates demanded for those jobs cannot be afforded.
In Germany the concept of apprenticeship spreads throughout the whole community. It is based on a subsistence wage plus pocket money. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider that, together with the TUC and the CBI. We must look at these problems construc

tively instead of talking about cataclymic alterations, changes of course and the need to alter everything in our society.
The difficulty is that there is an inability to tackle a practical problem. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether, through the introduction of a training allowance or taking 16 to 18-year-olds out of the collective bargaining process, as is accepted by the TUC and employers in the YOP programme, the age group coming out of school could be provided with a training apprenticeship scheme that allows them the ability to bridge the gap between school and work and gives them the opportunity for long-term full employment.
I do not believe that that is an impossible request for the Government to consider. We know that it works in the countries that I mentioned. The TUC and the Government are understandably worried about unemployment and the CBI is also concerned, because, if employers do not get sensible levels of skills from young people—and employers always cut back as soon as a recession comes—there will be a chronic shortage of skills—which we always seem to end up with—when the recession ends.
I ask the Government to look at that matter carefully. I beg the House not to try endlessly to seek extreme solutions from one side or the other when there are adequate practical answers if only we could discuss them sensibly.

Mr. David Ennals: Unemployment is no longer a problem only for the hard-hit regions such as Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Merseyside and the North. It is a growing problem for every region. For example, we have a rapidly growing problem in Norwich, where unemployment this month is up 5 per cent. on last month and up 15 per cent. on last year. Other areas in East Anglia, including Thetford, Diss, Beccles and Bungay, are also experiencing increased unemployment.
Future job prospects are also grim. The MSC has told us about the known redundancies and those to come, quite apart from the part-time working that many of my constituents have to do. As in other parts of the country, vacancies


are down and the prospects are depressing.
Unemployment is a problem in the service industries—and it has not been caused only by the cuts in public expenditure—but it is mainly the manufacturing industries, such as footwear, that are feeling the pinch of the Government's policies. Two groups suffer most. The first is those who have been unemployed for six months or more and those pushed out of work in their mid or late fifties, with little prospect of getting back into employment. This heartless Government's reward for them is to reduce their unemployment benefit.
The other group has been mentioned widely in the debate. They are the young. The easiest way to cut back on a labour force is to allow workers to retire and not to make any new appointments. In those circumstances, the young suffer  We shall soon have a new genera

tion of young people who will see themselves as having been rejected by the Government.
I warn the stubborn Prime Minister and her cowed Ministers that not only are they sowing the seeds of their own destruction and deeply damaging the industrial basis of our country, but they will create problems of mental instability, depression and lawlessness among those who are expected to go on to the jobless scrap heap over the next couple of years.
Even the Eastern Daily Press, which is no supporter of my party, says a leader today that unemployment may rise to 3 million or more under this Government. The article says:
The Treasury has itself admitted that it thinks manufacturing output will be 6 per cent. lower in a few years time. The Government's claim that there is no better alternative to counter-inflation strategy is losing its remaining credibility quickly".
As far as I am concerned, it has already lost its credibility.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wish to speak about the position of young people in circumstances of mounting unemployment. It is agreed that this is a world-wide problem and that the unemployment that already exists will, unfortunately, increase. I speak not only from a constituency point of view but as father of two 17 and 16-year-old sons. I have a personal interest in what happens.
This subject has been burdened over the years by some sloppy thinking. It has been mentioned that the greatest tragedy in a tragic situation is the position of the young unemployed. I agree that it is a tragedy for a young person to be unemployed. But the problems of a callow youth of 16 hardly compare with those of the father, aged 42 to 45, who has been working at a job all his life, who finds suddenly that his skills are redundant and has to tell his family of the problems that he now faces. To talk of the young unemployed—tragic though their position is—as the greatest tragedy, is wrong.
There is also a certain amount of sloppy thinking in the belief that our young people should be on a conveyor belt from school, through a job, to retirement at 65, and the grave. Why do we think that children should go into a job at 16 and remain nose to the grindstone for ever? We have allowed our young people to think in this way. I hear from my sons and their friends that they want to leave school and get out into a man's world, get a wage and be a man with everyone else. Is there nothing else that, at this age, they could do? We talk of the problem of youth unemployment. If one looks at the situation as an optimist rather than a pessimist, one could perhaps see it as an opportunity rather than a problem. Instead of regarding the matter as youth unemployment, we could regard it as inactivity or under-activity of young people. I know that this is wrong.
This is a time of life when young people want to be out, doing, achieving, striving and attaining. They want to be associated with other people. They want to be caring. It is a time of great compassion and conscience. It is a time, above all, of commitment—a time of

energy, vision, enterprise and enthusiasm. As a House of Commons, we should want to move that enthusiasm in a way that will be good for young people and good for the country as a whole.
There are 950,000 young people leaving school this year. It is a peak year. This high level of people leaving school will occur for some time, as will the problems of unemployment, especially for young people. We do not want an ad hoc scheme. We want a scheme that will endure. We do not want palliatives that temporarily suppress statistics or disguise politically unpleasant facts. We want a radical, new and properly thought-out long-term scheme to deal with the problem.
The youth opportunities programme has much to commend it. Some people would say, however, that, in certain aspects, it is unimaginative, and does not fulfil completely the role that will be needed in the future.
Every other major country in Europe, excluding Ireland, has a scheme of national service. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should have the old-fashioned scheme of National Service, with everyone dressed in khaki. But it is an opportunity in other countries for people to do something for other people and to serve their own nation. What I am suggesting, and what I have been discussing with many groups within the country, is a scheme for what I would call national community service. I have discussed it with Community Service Volunteers, Outward Bound and the National Trust for Conservation Volunteers. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester)—and his Department. If we move in this direction, we could start to solve the problem and do the country a great deal of good at the same time.
The scheme would, of essence, be voluntary. It would be for young people between the ages of 16 and 21—for girls as well as boys. They would start, perhaps—it is only an outline of a scheme; there is much to be discussed yet—with, say, three months of Outward Bound training, in which the young people would get together, take on tasks and


challenges together, work together, and find out more about each other and what they could do.
Having worked as a team and as a group, they would then be able to develop one of several options. The total scheme might be of a year's duration, so they would have nine months in which to go on to the next option. I can think immediately of three options.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman's children do it?

Mr. Marlow: If the scheme were in being, I wish that they would.
The first option would be for social work, working within the community, helping to look after the growing army of elderly and infirm for whom we have yet to devise the proper caring resources; to work in the hospitals, and to help in nursery schools with young children.
The second option could be an environmental option, to do work in our city centres to tidy them up. There are areas of dereliction where much could be done to bring about improvements; to work in our national parks and on private estates. [Interruption.] I shall not take any more interventions, because many more hon. Gentlemen wish to speak, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) knows.
The third option could be a form of cadet national service, in which boys and girls between the ages of 16 and 21 could learn the basic military skills so that, if at a later stage we needed to expand our reserve forces or our civil defence forces, we would have trained people we could slot in.
There would be immense benefits for people taking part in this scheme. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Keighley finds this amusing. I have discussed this scheme with many young people. Many young people have been very enthusiastic to participate. It would give them the opportunity to travel around the country to meet, group with group, black with white, in a mixed society, getting people together and taking them from their home background to another part of the country. It would let them test their skills at activities that they would not otherwise encounter, in parts of the country in which they would not otherwise live. It would let them

grow up and mature together, so that at the end of the scheme they would be better able and better fitted to take on a job, and to select a job. After all, when many young people get the opportunity of a job, the only job for which they get the opportunity is the one in their neighbourhood.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman's clothes are dropping off.

Mr. Marlow: I think that my clothes are all right.
Let us look at the subject of costs. One can do calculations about the cost of the scheme in any way that one likes. But what cost do we have at present? The people on the youth opportunities programme get £23·50 a week for work experience on employers' premises. The unemployed get £18·50 a week, I think. Those on supplementary benefit get ·12.95 a week. There are other immense costs because of the social problems that we have with young people being inactive and having nothing to do. We get vandalism. We get trees uprooted. We get paint daubed on walls. We get windows smashed. We get people being taken to court and people going to prison. These are the hidden costs.
If we had such a scheme as this, not only would we cut out a lot of these costs but we would have a great deal of benefit. It would be educational for the people involved in the scheme. It would be benefiting society. We could have jobs done that we could not otherwise attempt to do. Further, money could be obtained from some of the jobs that would be done for private people. Some of the jobs which could be done eventually by this scheme could be some of the more boring arduous activities being done by local authorities at great cost, so there could be a saving there.
The problem of inactivity among young people is growing and will continue to grow. I believe that it will become so grave that we shall need a radical solution to it. I ask my right hon. Friend to investigate further the possibility of setting up such a scheme at some stage.

Mr. Clive Soley: There should be only one aim for a civilised society, and that should be to provide employment, training or


education for anyone able or willing to undertake it. The reason for that is that unemployment is destructive of the individual, destructive of the family and, ultimately, destructive of society. I had wished to develop that point and speak about Government policies, but time prevents that.
This issue cannot simply be linked to the strength of trade unions. The strength of trade unions is always thrown at us, but no one ever mentions the BMA or management. It is curious that when we speak of wages for ordinary people we say that they have to earn them, but when we talk of high incomes we justify increasing those incomes by saying that we will only get monkeys if we pay peanuts.
I direct my remarks to one specific problem and one vulnerable group—the ethnic minorities, with particular reference to young unemployed blacks. There is a special problem of language in this context, because I have heard the phrase used "The problem of unemployed blacks". We do not have a problem of unemployed blacks. There is a problem for unemployed blacks, and there is a problem of racialism.
If anyone doubts the latter, I ask him to dwell on the thoughts of those concerned in Nazi Germany. The Nazis said that they had a Jewish problem, and because they said that they had such a problem they devised a solution to it. They called their answer to that problem the "final solution". I put it to the House that Nazi Germany did not have a Jewish problem. Nazi Germany had racialism, and when we look at the unemployment rates of young blacks and other ethnic minority groups, we know that we have a problem of racialism.
The figures, as best I am able to get them—they vary from one area of the country to another—are difficult to quantify with accuracy. We estimate that in my own constituency of Hammersmith and Fulham 23 per cent. of black males under 20 are unemployed, compared with an overall unemployment figure of 9 per cent. The GLC's estimate of unemployment in the 16 to 24-year age group for those born of parents who were born in the West Indies is about 17·6 per cent., compared with about 6·3 per cent. for the indigenous GLC population. In the Metropolitan Police district the unem

ployment figure for 1975 suggests an unemployment rate of 5·50 per cent. for white people, 12·30 per cent. for blacks, and 10·55 per cent. for Asians. Even on a conservative estimate those figures suggest that unemployment among young blacks is at least twice as high—and possibly three or four times as high—as for the white population.
I suggest that the bulk of that unemployment is caused by racist attitudes. When I speak of racialism, I distinguish between prejudice, which is often conscious and overt on the part of the person who practises it, and discrimination, which is much more difficult to deal with, because often the person who discriminates is unaware of it. That produces special problems for young blacks.
It means that a young black may apply for the same job as a young white person. The young black may have the same, or better, qualifications than the young white person and may have prepared himself for the job, yet he may not get it, and the subsequent feelings of frustration and bitterness causes the problem. If we had the political courage, we could deal with that problem. We could pass legislation to provide, as they do in the United States, that companies should employ a minimum number of people from ethnic minority groups.
It is more immediately important that we should do something to develop the pre-TOPS scheme. That programme is being drastically cut in my area. That will affect Asians and others whose social and educational skills are below the average of the people with whom they are competing, either because they have been born and brought up abroad—with resulting cultural and language difficulties—or because they have missed out at a number of educational and social levels. The result of that is that they are in a tougher position. I ask the Minister to comment on the problem and give some constructive thought to the needs of young unemployed blacks. We have already seen part of the problem in Bristol, and we shall see more of unless we do something about it.
It is particularly sad that we sometimes try to differentiate between public and private expenditure. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made a marvellous case for more public


expenditure, but it will not be forthcoming. I cite the example of a drug company which makes large profits and is in the so-called productive sector. I choose that company not through any maliciousness towards drug companies, but simply to explain that those companies produce drugs to deal with problems, many of which have their roots in social and psychological proglems in the community. Those problems are themselves exacerbated or caused by cuts in public expenditure. There is a curious argument, therefore, about what we mean by wealth.
If we do not get this problem right there will be more race riots, more crime and more harassment of ethnic minority groups. Because they are on the streets they are visible, and, unless they are to stay in their homes and avoid contact with the outside world, they are vulnerable.
There will also be more depression and mental illness. It is no accident that the crime rate for men is higher than that for women, but the converse is true of mental illness. There are far more mentally ill women than mentally ill men. That says something about the structure of our society. Above all, it says something about the vulnerability of young men who go out on the streets and then get picked up for crimes.
I can give a brief example of the problems caused by housing difficulties. Not long ago an Asian, employed in a trade conventional to Asians, was offered a house by the GLC in South-East London. However, he lived in West London. He was told by the GLC that either he should give up the idea of a house or he should get rid of the job. He could not have both.
Ultimately, there is no question of the "Why work?" syndrome. There is either no work or there are special problems. We must deal with that and I ask the Minister to provide some answers to the problems of young unemployed blacks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Eric Varley.

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there no consideration for ethnic minorities in this House? No Scottish Back Bencher has been called to speak

in this most important debate. That is most disgraceful because the people from my area are most concerned about unemployment and about the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is extremely difficult in a debate of this kind to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak. When I was in the Chair earlier today, I made a plea for short speeches. I am afraid that it was disregarded by some hon. Members.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: This has been a serious debate, and so it should have been because it is set against a most serious and sombre background and the most alarming employment situation since the 1930s. If anything, the position will get much worse. If it is any consolation to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), I am sure that we shall be returning to this subject on many occasions in the next few months and years.
I find it difficult to accept the proposition advanced by many Conservative Members that we should try to approach this question in a bipartisan way and that we should not criticise the Government. I exclude the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) from that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman directed his remarks against his Front Bench. I cannot agree that we on the Labour Benches should try to approach this subject without examining some of the Government's other problems and policies.
One by one the members of this Government are achieving records of a kind which no Minister in any Administration since the war has chalked up. The Secretary of State for Social Services is the first holder of his office or a similar office for 50 years who is actually cutting social benefits. The Secretary of State for the Environment is presiding over the worst house building programme for 40 years. The Secretary of State for Industry is masterminding the worst collapse of business confidence and investment that has taken place in the lifetime of any hon. Member. The Secretary of State for Employment—the right hon. Gentleman who used to bluster against the Labour Government from this Dispatch Box—has the double if dubious honour of presiding over the worst unemployment


figures for 30 years. He regards it as his curious duty to take measures that increase unemployment and reduce the chances of finding a job for those who seek work.
In the past, the Secretary of State for Employment has been able to drone on about the record of the Labour Government. I and other hon. Members who served in that Government were in no doubt about the unacceptability of unemployment figures during our period of office, but we took measures to assist employment. The Department of Employment interpreted its duties by intervening to promote employment and to save jobs in many industries and regions. Whenever we introduced measures and policies to save jobs, the then Opposition voted against them. The Department of Employment carried out employment schemes which made a considerable impact on unemployment, and when we left office unemployment was falling month by month. Although the employable labour force had increased substantially during the period 1974–79, when we left office there were more people in work than when our period of office started.
Now we have a Government who have a whole battery of policies that are deliberately designed to force up unemployment. We have a Secretary of State for Industry who seems to revel in closing down factories and placing even prosperous companies in jeopardy. Judging from what the right hon. Gentleman said in the House last week, he even wishes to meddle with and jeopardise the prospects of Ferranti. The right hon. Gentleman prevents worthwhile new jobs being created. He told the House in a statement on the steel industry that Governments do not create jobs. But thousands of new worthwhile jobs for the future could be created if he allowed the Inmos project to go ahead and provided a second tranche of money. Approximately 3,000 new jobs would be created in a hard-pressed region of Britain.
We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is destroying jobs daily by his policies on interest rates and exchange rates. We have a Secretary of State for the Environment who is getting rid of essential jobs in local government. The Secretary of State for Social Services is doing the same in the Health Service, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science is doing the same in our schools.
What then is the Secretary of State for Employment doing about it all? Is he marching into the Cabinet Room and using the authority of his office to resist these unprecedented attacks on jobs? Is he saying to his colleagues in the Cabinet Room "I am the Secretary of State for Employment, and it is my duty to protect and promote employment"? Not that we can see. The Secretary of State is the first holder of his office who not only acquiesces in the attacks that his colleagues make on jobs, but actually, anxiously and zealously makes his contribution to those attacks.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State is ever a guest at those 8 o'clock breakfast meetings of the Prime Minister at Downing Street that I am told she is fond of holding, or whether he is invited along afterwards—

Mr. Skinner: Superwet.

Mr. Varley: —but when, at breakfast time or at any other time, the Prime Minister calls for cuts in expenditure, the Secretary of State for Employment is never at the back of the queue. He always rushes in with his offerings. Although he will no doubt make much tonight of the increase in the youth opportunities programme, his overall spending on job promotion schemes and training has been cut by millions of pounds in real terms.
The Secretary of State for Employment boasts that he is maintaining two guarantees on the youth opportunities programme which the previous Labour Government made—that every school leaver will be offered a place on the programme by Easter, and that 16 to 18year-olds who have been unemployed for more than a year will be offered a place. The Secretary of State must know that those guarantees—which were again given by the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon—are in peril, because yesterday he received a letter from the British Youth Council which said:
We now learn that the Manpower Services Commission is indicating that these vitally important guarantees cannot be met next year if the planned cuts in MSC staff go ahead centrally and locally. This means that many school-leavers, particularly the most disadvantaged, will not find a place on the Programme. This would have disastrous effects on the credibility of the Programme.
We know that the MSC has sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman in which it


said that further big cuts in services for the unemployed were wholly unacceptable—this is the Government's own MSC—and added:
The latest request for a further 8 per cent. cut would mean that MSC staff would be reduced by more than a quarter as unemployment rises because of Government policies.
The Commission's letter continued:
The result would be damaging and irresponsible cutbacks in employment and training services and the MSC's special programme for the unemployed.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that he has the money to maintain the guarantees which were given this afternoon. When the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked about it, he did not answer. He blustered. If the right hon. Gentleman can now indicate that he has the money, I shall readily give way to him, but perhaps he would like to leave it until he speaks. I hazard a guess that this has not yet gone before the appropriate Cabinet committee, and that he has not yet won that battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the guarantees which the Secretary of State for Scotland gave this afternoon are to be honoured, it is vitally important that the money should be forthcoming.
When I spoke in the debate on unemployment last March, I was pessimistic enough to warn that unemployment on official and Conservative estimates would rise to 1·8 million by March of next year. It is now plain that those estimates were absurdly optimistic. We are nine months ahead of time and already we have nearly reached that figure. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is complacently residing over unemployment figures which would make any self-respecting Secretary of State for Employment hide his head in shame. I shall come to the figures in a moment. But to some extent the Secretary of State abandoned all concern—some say that he abandoned all self-respect—the day the Prime Minister publicly insulted him on television, and he just sat back and took it.
Indeed, we have now reached the stage when the Prime Minister does not herself deign to bother with insulting the Secretary of State. She leaves it to her junior henchmen, such as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He was on television the other day and challenged the Secretary of State and those who share his views that

if they do not agree with the policies being pursued by the Chief Secretary they should get out. No doubt the Secretary of State for Employment will swallow that publicly with the nervous grin that he has on his face now and will privately engage in another bout of off-the-record briefing.
Even if the Secretary of State has abandoned all pride and responsibility for unemployment, he should at least take some notice of the pride of the young unemployed who want a decent job. He should concern himself with the youngsters who are suffering under the worst ever increase in school leaver unemployment—the youngsters who, according to the Secretary of State's own Department, are adrift in a youth labour market where there are 10 applicants for every vacancy.
I wish to give the House some facts about what the Government's brave new Britain has to offer school leavers as a part of Britain's overall unemployment. I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister has come into the Chamber. She is the person I wish to question because she is the person responsible. Everywhere in Britain we can pick up a local newspaper and see what the Government are offering youngsters. In my area the unemployment level is the national average. Some Conservative Members would say that I am fortunate. But a headline in the Derbyshire Times states:
'Dole queue beckons youngsters by the thousand.
All my hon. Friends could point to similar situations in their constituencies. The article says:
A thousand teenagers will be thrown on to the job market in work-starved North Derbyshire when the summer school term ends next month.… At Clay Cross the picture is equally grim. No fewer than 252 have registered—to compete for only five jobs.
Those are the human facts behind the cold statistics. The future prospects are even worse.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an answer to a written question given by the Department of Employment last week shows that in the traditional Conservative area of the South-West there was a job gain of 15,000, in the traditional Conservative area of East Anglia there was a job gain of 10,000, but that over the same period in the traditional Labour


areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire there was a job loss of 42,000? Some of us do not believe that that is an accident.

Mr. Varley: The levels of employment in the North, the North-East, Wales and Scotland are extremely high. But the levels will rise also in the traditional South-East. There have been many closures—for example Bontextile Installations (Engineers), in Ellesmere Port, which is in a constituency that the Conservatives gained from Labour; F & H Footwear in Preston, where the number of redundancies in that one firm is greater than the majority which provided the Tory gain at the general election; "Q" Mark International at Rossendale, where the Conservatives gained a seat in the general election; Standroyd Mill at Pendle, Nelson and Colne, which was another Conservative gain at the general election. I wonder whether any of the four new Tory Members for those constituencies, and the many others who gained seats would be sitting on the Conservative Benches today if they and their leaders had told the constituents the truth about what a Tory Government would do to their jobs and their livelihoods.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) pointed out earlier, school leavers have been given thankful and constructive advice on how to find work. The Sun newspaper has waded in with a school leavers' jobs guide which suggests that youngsters help with donkey rides. The article states:
temporary jobs worth trying include baby-sitting, housework, gardening or taking dogs for walks.
That piece of inspired journalism won its editor, Sir Albert Lamb, a knightood in the Birthday Honours List. No doubt the Prime Minister knew about that reward. These keen, eager, bright-eyed youngsters are being offered as human sacrifices on the altar of monetarism.
This is the first Government of any party to have decided to subject the country to an experiment based on a mystical doctrine. The Government Front Bench see visions and hear voices. They are the voices of Professors Hayek and Friedman. Nowhere in the world where the theories of these two dubious academics have been tested have they succeeded. So the Government have de

cide to test the theories to destruction, even if it means the destruction of our whole economy.
This is the formula being followed by the Government to help the teenagers who are trying to get jobs. Inflation is to be cured by prices being raised—VAT, fuel, gas, school meals and prescription charges. Industry is to be galvanised by giving it the freedom of the bankruptcy court. The nation is to be made healthier by the closure of hospitals and health centres. We are to be better housed in fewer and more expensive houses, and the construction industry is to be destroyed at the same time. Our children's education is to be improved by cutting the school building programme, removing the equipment from them and sacking the teachers.
In 13 months the Government have certainly brought the country to this situation, but it will get much worse. If, 13 months ago, anybody had warned that the Tory Government would conduct themselves in such a way, those allegations would have been described as Labour lies. In fact, that is precisely what the Daily Mail did. Come to think of it, that is exactly what happened. But we all know that on this occasion, as on others, the poor old Daily Mail was the innocent victim of a malicious forgery. The list that I have given of Tory policies and their effect is not a collection of fantasies but an accurate description of the effect on this country of 13 months of action by the Government.
I do not know how the Prime Minister can take this. Yesterday she came to the House of Commons dressed in sober black. She should have come in sackcloth and ashes. In 1978, speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box and referring to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, then the Prime Minister, the right hon. Lady said:
The right hon. Gentleman has achieved the extraordinary double not only of increasing unemployment but of having a considerable shortage of skilled labour.
Yet the Prime Minister, who has increased unemployment, is sacking those who are involved in skillcentres and can do the training. She went on to say:
Over the lifetime of this Government there has been a tremendous increase of about 731,000.


The right hon. Lady was referring to unemployment. That increase was deplorable and regretted, but that was at a rate of 150,000 a year. The increase over the 13 months of this Administration has been 350,000—more than double.
In that same debate—I would not have believed it if I had not got the Hansard extract before me—the right hon. Lady said:
The Prime Minister's record on unemployment is as bad as his record on inflation, and this is an extremely important point when people consider the record of a Government and how they shall vote next time."—[Official Report, 14 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 936.]
The right hon. Lady's record on inflation and unemployment is a cruel betrayal of the misguided and misled voters in those marginal seats who helped her to achieve power.
Over the next few months, unemployment will go up, and it will go up considerably—much beyond the 2 million mark mentioned in some of the estimates of a few months ago. We know that the figure for the long-term unemployed will go up to about 500,000—that is, those who have been out of work for more than a year. School leaver unemployment will go up by about 100 per cent. Bright-eyed youngsters will leave school only to be told by society that it has no use for them. Recent studies have shown that there is a connection between delinquency, criminal activity and unemployment.
It is the duty of the Prime Minister to foster economic conditions that will enable people to get jobs. Sooner or later, the Prime Minister will have to change her attitude to employment policies, to manpower policies and to training policies. For the sake of the health and stability of the nation, we hope that this will occur very soon. If she were to do that, we could have some of the bipartisan arrangements which have been mentioned today. If she were to change her policies, we could move actively, swiftly, urgently and contructively, and we could give them some support. But I suspect that the right hon. Lady will not change her mind, and that for the time being she will stay with these disastrous policies.
Tonight, therefore, Labour Members will vote as the people of this country would vote if only they had the chance.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has made a rumbustuous speech. I cannot say that it was a very constructive speech—unlike the speeches of some of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), to whose speech I should like to refer later. It may not help him but I should like to do so.
Since much of the debate has centred around manpower policy and the special measures, I should like to take up the point raised by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He asked, first, whether the money was available for the youth opportunities programme for this year. Then he wanted to know whether it would be available for subsequent years, in view of the fact that the allocation appeared to be less than would be required for the number of young people who might need a youth opportunities programme.
The answer is that the number of young people leaving school and available for employment is likely to fall after this year—it reaches its peak this year—and therefore the figures that have been taken so far for subsequent years are lower than those we think are required for this year, when we have expanded very considerably. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall have the money available for the youth opportunities programme to fulfil the pledges which have been given in the past, and which we have given again, for the continuation of the scheme. There is no question of money not being available for that purpose.
I want to make it perfectly plain—as many hon. Members have made plain in the course of their speeches today—that whereas we can help with a number of these schemes which are palliatives, and which can help to foster the movement of resources from declining sectors to those with potential for expansion, they can only act as an aid to sound economic, industrial and regional policies and must not be allowed to jeopardise those policies. In other words, we can help with these schemes but they are not of themselves an answer to our unemployment problem.
As the Manpower Services Commission pointed out in the manpower review which has been liberally quoted today:
Lower unemployment requires more jobs and these are generated by the activities of employers (both public and private) operating in a competitive and efficient economy.
Those are the words, not of my Manpower Services Commission but, as I am finding out rapidly, of an extremely independent tripartite body which does not mince its words on a number of subjects. There is no difference between us and the Opposition on that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Manpower Services Commission today decided unanimously to protest strongly at the demands that he is making on it to cut its budget further, because it says that such a cut will lead to a reduction of one-quarter of its work force and make it impossible for it to do its job?

Mr. Prior: Already the commission is making a considerable reduction in the number of people that it employs. A reduction of about 16 per cent. will take place in the next three years. As part of the exercise to reduce the size of the Civil Service generally, I have asked the commission to consider making further cuts of 8 per cent. over three years. The commission wrote to me today saying that it does not think that it can make any cut in the coming year but that it will consider my request. When it comes to its budget and corporate plan in the autumn it will make a considered judgment. That is reasonable.
We accept that living standards could be improved if means could be found to bring unemployed resources into use in a way which would satisfy the needs of British and overseas consumers for goods and services without increasing inflation. The right hon. Member for Craigton suggested remedies which would add to our inflation problems. Whether we like it or not, inflation is at the root of our problems. Social injustices and economic inefficiencies are the result of inflation. Only by controlling inflation will we create the climate in which real jobs flourish and unemployment falls.
The priority of controlling inflation is not just a quirk of the present United Kingdom Government. It was agreed at Venice by a number of Governments of

different political persuasions. Paragraph 4 of the communiqué said that the reduction of inflation was our immediate top priority and would benefit all nations.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior: I will not give way at the moment.
The communiqué states:
Inflation retards growth and harms all sections of our societies. Determined fiscal and monetary restraint is required to break inflationary expectations.
This is a clear statement of the Government's general economic strategy and one to which it is heartening to see foreign Government's of varying political complexions subscribe.
The communiqué refers to the need for a continuing dialogue among the social partners. I think that a dialogue between management and work people has much to contribute and I should like to see that dialogue extended to the Government in every way possible. The NEDC is probably the best vehicle for expanding and extending that dialogue. We shall do all that we can to do that.

Mr. Ennals: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior: No. I want to give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), if I give way to anybody.
One of the realities that we are seeking to establish is that unemployment will continue to increase if wage increases do not moderate to much the same rate as the growth in the money supply. That means income levels increasing less than past price increases. The issue is not whether real incomes must fall but whether that fall is concentrated on those who become unemployed. For too long, real incomes have been growing faster than productivity, at the expense of the profits and investment on which jobs depend.
The exercise of recent years makes clear the consequences of excessive pay settlements. For the past few years we have been overpaying ourselves in relation to our competitors. Their pay deals have more nearly matched increased productivity. As a result, they can afford high pay deals while remaining competitive. In Britain, high pay deals have


meant that we have become less competitive.
In the third quarter of last year, the United Kingdom's normal unit labour costs, relative to the average for competing countries, were about 12 per cent. higher than in 1975, and 30 per cent. higher than the lower level of 1976. A further deterioration in competitiveness has probably occurred since then. That inability to compete shackles us and leads to job loss as the world recession sets in.
The challenge to everyone in British trade and industry is to match our pay more closely to our productivity, as our competitors do.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Prior: I am short of time and wish to continue my speech. If we do not match pay more closely to productivity, we shall suffer far worse unemployment than those countries. Of course, incomes are not the only explanation for the United Kingdom's inflation rates. Oil prices play their part, alongside our determination to reduce subsidies to nationalised industries and to switch from direct to indirect taxation. That must be admitted. However, incomes are the most relevant factor in today's debate.
If we were to follow the policies advocated by the Opposition there would be a massive increase in general taxation, or borrowing at extremely high interest rates.

Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are involved in a great inflation campaign. Is it not like a slimming campaign, in which somehow or other two or three pounds are put on every week?

Mr. Prior: If I were the right hon. Gentleman I would keep pretty quiet. He was responsible for the social services, and for the National Health Service. We have had to pick up some of the bills that accumulated over those three years. They are the cause of much of the trouble that we are in. The right hon. Gentleman left us to honour the Clegg comparability awards. Last year's settlements for civil servants and for local Government staffs amounted to about £3,000 million of extra public expenditure that must be met. The right hon. Gentleman was partly respon

sible for those settlements. Had the Labour Party won the election in May, it would have faced a higher rate of inflation now than when the Labour Government left office. They left office in the nick of time and they know it.

Mr. Heffer: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what he and his hon. Friends will do about the unemployed youth in Liverpool, whom I have already described. Perhaps he will explain what they will do about the unemployed youth that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and other Opposition Members have described. What will he do about this issue? What plans have the Government got?

Mr. Prior: Serious as the problems are, anyone would think, after listening to interventions from the Opposition, that the problems had started only a few months ago. Let me take the figures for May 1974 to May 1975. During that period unemployment in the North-West increased by 51 per cent. In the first year of the Conservative Government it has increased by 18·4 per cent. I know that that is not good enough, but I shall come to that point later. As the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) said in last Friday's debate on the West Midlands, these problems go back far more than 12 months. That is true of unemployment generally.
Since 1960 there have been successive economic cycles that have involved higher levels of unemployment at their peaks and troughs. In 1966, the three-month moving average level of unemployment in Great Britain fell to about a quarter of a million. In 1969 and 1973 the low point was over half a million. In 1979 it was 1·2 million. At the bottom of the economic cycle in 1963, unemployment was half a million. In subsequent cycles it reached a similar level in 1968, nearly 900,000 in 1972 and nearly 1·4 million in 1977. That is a trend that shows clearly that past policies followed by both sides of the House have not succeeded. That is why we have changed our policies this time, and if Labour Members do not understand that they do not understand anything.
Similarly, we seem less able to sustain economic growth when we can attain it. The figures for growth of manufacturing


output show that we are still not producing as many manufactured goods today as we produced in 1973. In each period we have done worse than in the period before. That is why when Opposition Members suggest the same old remedies they are not suggesting anything that can be made to work [Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions from a sedentary position which amount to barracking are quite unfair.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: There can hardly be a point of order on my saying that barracking is out of order.

Mr. Cryer: It is not a point of order on your ruling, Mr. Speaker. You must appreciate that the reason for the anger on this side of the House is that the Secretary of State is not explaining what the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must make his own speech and he must be allowed to do so.

Mr. Prior: The reason why I refuse to give any forecasts is that when I look at the forecasts produced by the Opposition I realise that it is not wise to do so. The right hon. Member for Leeds. East (Mr. Healey) said in the Budget of 1976:
The target the Government have set themselves is to get unemployment down to 3 per cent. in 1979".—[Official Report, 6 April 1976: Vol. 909, c. 240.]
They were planning to do that by an increase in the GDP of 5½ per cent. a year and an increase in manufacturing output of 8½ per cent. a year. By the time they left office manufacturing output was lower than when they were elected. What right have they to lecture us about employment?

Mr. Jack Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior: No. I had better get on with my speech.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: What have the Government done?

Mr. Prior: We have increased the youth opportunities programme this year

by an additional 50,000 places. I have repeated the undertakings of previous Governments that everyone who leaves school this summer will have the opportunity of a YOP place by Easter. Far from cutting expenditure on training, the YOP and other special measures, we are spending more this year than ever before. Labour Members cannot take much credit there.
In 1979–80, more than 210,000 young people were helped by the programme. More than 130,000 were 1979 school leavers. We shall continue with the undertakings for this year and beyond to the school leavers and young persons who have been unable to find a job for 12 months. We are also designing other policies to help those in greatest need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) mentioned open learning techniques. I believe that we ought to use all the available methods of better communications to help with the process of training and retraining. We must all understand that we shall need to retrain vast numbers over the next few years.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman needs retraining.

Mr. Prior: It is not a question of training only for clerical jobs. People must be trained for the high technology jobs. We have doubled the numbers being helped in that way.
During the period of recession we have to make certain that our training policies are right so that the next time that expansion takes place—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: When will that be?

Mr. Prior: Never, if we follow the Opposition's policies. We must ensure that the next time that we get into expansion we do not immediately run into the bottlenecks of the lack of skilled people that we have had in the past few years.
The message that I want to go out from the House is that we are doing every bit as much to help young people as did the Labour Government. The MSC review said:
The main answer to these problems is a faster rate of employment growth which in turn depends on the control of inflation and


the restoration of an efficient and competitive economy.
It is to the objectives of a sustainable improvement in job prospects, through the control of inflation and the creation of an economy better able to compete in the world, that the Government's policies are directed.
When I was first elected to the House in 1959 we had a Local Employment Bill to give help when unemployment was over 4 per cent. The policies of the past 20

years have resulted in this country's unemployment getting worse. Because of that, this Government were elected last year. We shall see this thing through, however hard the time may be over the next few months.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 320.

Division No. 372]
AYES
10 pm


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Adams, Allen
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allaun, Frank
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Alton, David
Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell


Anderson, Donald
Eastham, Ken
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lambie, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lamborn, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lamond, James


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Leighton, Ronald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fitch, Alan
Litherland, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fitt, Gerard
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bradley, Tom
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forrester, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foster, Derek
McKelvey, William


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Foulkes. George
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McNamara, Kevin


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freud, Clement
McQuade, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Magee, Bryan


Campbell, Ian
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, John
Maxton, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Gourlay, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cohen, Stanley
Graham, Ted
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F.
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Cowans, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Crowther, J. S.
Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Cryer, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morton, George


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Ogden, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Homewood, William
O'Neill, Martin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Horam, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Palmer, Arthur


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Huckfield, Les
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Parker, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville
Penhaligon, David


Dobson, Frank
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dormand, Jack
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Douglas, Dick
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Dou[...]las-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Race, Reg


Dubs, Alfred
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Radice, Giles


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)




Richardson, Jo
Snape, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Soley, Clive
Watkins, David


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Spearing, Nigel
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stallard, A. W.
Welsh, Michael


Robertson, George
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Stoddart, David
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Stott, Roger
Whitehead, Phillip


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Strang, Gavin
Whitlock, William


Rooker, J. W.
Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Roper, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ryman, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Winnick, David


Sever, John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Woodall, Alec


Sheerman, Barry
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Tilley, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Tinn, James
Wright, Sheila


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Torney, Tom
Young, David (Bolton East)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom



Silverman, Julius
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skinner, Dennis
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. John Evans and


Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Alison, Michael
Corrie, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount
Haselhurst, Alan


Arnold, Tom
Critchley, Julian
Hastings, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Crouch, David
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Dickens, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dorrell, Stephen
Hayhoe, Barney


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dover, Denshore
Heddle, John


Banks, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Henderson, Barry


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Sir Ronald
Dykes, Hugh
Hicks, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Eggar, Timothy
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Elliott, Sir William
Hooson, Tom


Best, Keith
Emery, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Blackburn, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Body, Richard
Fell, Anthony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bowden, Andrew
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bright, Graham
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brinton, Tim
Forman, Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Brittan, Leon
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Kimball, Marcus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brotherton, Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Knox, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Fry, Peter
Lamont, Norman


Browne, John (Winchester)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lang, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Latham, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lawson, Nigel


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lee, John


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhew, Victor
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Burden, F. A.
Goodlad, Alastair
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Butcher, John
Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Butler, Hon Adam
Gow, Ian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gower, Sir Raymond
Loveridge, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Luce, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gray, Hamish
Lyell, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Greenway, Harry
McCrindle, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Grieve, Percy
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
MacGregor, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Grist, Ian
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Cockeram, Eric
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)







McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pawsey, James
Stevens, Martin


McQuarrie, Albert
Percival, Sir Ian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Madel, David
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Major, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John


Marland, Paul
Pollock, Alexander
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marlow, Tony
Porter, George
Tapsell, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mates, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Mather, Carol
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Mawby, Ray
Proctor, K. Harvey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thompson, Donald


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Raison, Timothy
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Mellor, David
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rhodes James, Robert
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Moate, Roger
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Waddington, David


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wakeham, John


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Montgomery, Fergus
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Moore, John
Rossi, Hugh
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Morgan, Geraint
Rost, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Ward, John


Murphy, Christopher
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Myles, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watson, John


Neale, Gerrard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Needham, Richard
Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Nelson, Anthony
Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Sims, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Newton, Tony
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitney, Raymond


Nott, Rt Hon John
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Wickenden, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Osborn, John
Spence, John
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Parkinson, Cecil
Squire, Robin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Parris, Matthew
Stainton, Keith



Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stanley, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Pattie, Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to

Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 247.

Division No. 373]
AYES
[10.15 pm


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bowden, Andrew
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Ancram, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Clegg, Sir Walter


Arnold, Tom
Bright, Graham
Cockeram, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Brinton, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brittan, Leon
Cope, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Brooke, Hon Peter
Corrie, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brotherton, Michael
Costain, A. P.


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Cranborne, Viscount


Banks, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)
Critchley, Julian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Crouch, David


Bell, Sir Ronald
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Bendall, Vivian
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Buck, Antony
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Budgen, Nick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bulmer, Esmond
Dover, Denshore


Best, Keith
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butcher, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butler, Hon Adam
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)




Eggar, Timothy
Lee, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Elliott, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Farr, John
Luce, Richard
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Fell, Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas
Rossi, Hugh


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert
Rost, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McQuarrie, Albert
Shersby, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Silvester, Fred


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Major, John
Sims, Roger


Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul
Skeet, T. H. H.


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marlow, Tony
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mates, Michael
Speller, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Goodhew, Victor
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sproat, Iain


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Squire, Robin


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Stainton, Keith


Gow, Ian
Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Steen, Anthony


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stevens, Martin


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stokes, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, James
Tapsell, Peter


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)
Moore, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Murphy, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hawkins, Paul
Myles, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heddle, John
Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nott, Rt Hon John
Waddington, David


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Wakeham, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Waldegrave, Hon William


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Osborn, John
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Hooson, Tom
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wall, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil
Waller, Gary


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parris, Matthew
Ward, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Watson, John


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Sir Ian
Wheeler, John


Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitney, Raymond


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Wickenden, Keith


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Porter, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wilkinson, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wolfson, Mark


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Proctor, K. Harvey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Knox, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy



Lang, Ian
Rathbone, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Latham, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Tim








NOES


Abse, Leo
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Palmer, Arthur


Adams, Allen
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Park, George


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parker, John


Alton, David
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parry, Robert


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Ginsburg, David
Penhaligon, David


Ashton, Joe
Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Graham, Ted
Frice, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Race, Reg


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Radice, Giles


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Jo


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hooley, Frank
Roper, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Huckfield, Les
Rowlands, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfeo
Ryman, John


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sandelson, Neville


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sever, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheerman, Barry


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Hon Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Silverman, Julius


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Skinner, Dennis


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snape, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Crowther, J. S.
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
Lamborn, Harry
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamond, James
Stoddart, David


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Strang, Gavin


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Straw, Jack


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Deakins, Eric
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dewar, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dixon, Donald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tinn, James


Dobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Torney, Tom


Dormand, Jack
McKelvey, William
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas, Dick
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McQuade, John
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Magee, Bryan
Watkins, David


Dunnett, Jack
Marks, Kenneth
Weetch, Ken


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Welsh, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Maxton, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitehead, Phillip


English, Michael
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, John (Newton)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ewing, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fitch, Alan
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Winnick, David


Fitt, Gerard
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Woodall, Alec


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Newens, Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wright, Sheila


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ogden, Eric
Young, David (Bolton East)


Ford, Ben
O'Halloran, Michael



Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Foulkes, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

Resolved,
That this House shares the concern at the rise in unemployment but recognises that in the face of many years of industrial weakness and the development of a world recession there is no quick solution; approves the actions of Her Majesty's Government in concentrating assistance in the area of greatest need and in increasing the size of the youth opportunities programme; confirms its support for the present policies designed to reduce inflation and urges all concerned to minimise unemployment by moderating the level of wage settlements.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

TRANSPORT BILL

Lords amendments considered.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move,
That the Lords Amendments be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 1 to 62, Nos. 86 to 121, Nos. 63 to 85 and Nos. 122 to 135.
I think that Opposition Members agree that it would be for the convenience of the House if the Lords amendments to the Bill were considered in this order.

Manuscript amendment proposed, to leave out '1 to 62' and insert
'1, 41, 2 to 40, 42 to 62'.—[Mr Terry Davis.]

Mr. Fowler: The amendment is entirely acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2

DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE"

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3. line 27, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6, the amendment to Lords amendment No. 6, Lords amendment No. 41, the amendments to Lords amendment No. 41, and Lords amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 130.

Mr. Fowler: It might be for the convenience of the House if I briefly recall the main theme of the bus licensing reforms introduced in the Bill. It is intended to widen choice and to increase the number of ways in which the needs of the travelling public can be met. It is directed essentially at the needs of the passengers. I remind the House that licences will no longer be needed for long distance services, and that they will be easier to obtain for stage carriage services. County councils will be given the option of choosing to have road service licensing abolished altogether. The


Bill also removes the remaining restrictions on the advertisement of car sharing.
These Lords amendments have the same theme. They open up one further way in which people's varied transport needs may be met. At present, buses provided on contract to education authorities may pick up adults and charge them fares, but in those cases where the authorities themselves own the vehicles they have no powers to carry fare-paying adults. These amendments provide the necessary power, and enable local education authorities to carry ordinary fare-paying passengers on school buses belonging to them.
There are a number of points that I wish to draw to the attention of the House. First, there will be maximum flexibility—it is not only on journeys to and from school that school buses will be able to carry other passengers, but at the tmes of the day and of the year at which they are not required for their primary purpose. Secondly, the existing duties of authorities to carry pupils free remains quite unaffected. Thirdly, road service licences will be required, and the traffic commissioners will adjudicate on proposals to provide services by school vehicles just as they will adjudicate on proposals by anybody else. It is for them to ensure that the proposals will not be against the interests of the public. Fourthly, the present status of vehicles owned by local education authorities in respect of public service vehicle licences will be maintained, and operators licensing will not be required of them. The Government have considered carefully, and rejected, the case of imposing restrictions on such vehicles that they do not suffer at present.
I do not believe that this will solve the rural public transport problem. Vehicles owned by education authorities are the exception rather than the rule. But the amendment will remove a quite unnecessary restriction on the use of those vehicles, and I hope that authorities will seize the opportunities it gives to provide services that would not otherwise be provided.

Mr. Albert Booth: Lords amendment No. 41, to which my hon. Friends have tabled amendments, has two purposes. It enables a local autho

rity to use its school buses to carry fare-paying passengers at the same time as it is carrying children to school. It also allows that same school bus to be used, at times when it is not carrying children to school on a school transport basis, to provide local bus services. Up to that point, we are not seeking to alter the amendment. The point at which we seek to amend it is where the amendment removes from those who operate buses in that way virtually every statutory safeguard on the condition of buses, and to allow them to run the buses in a way that we would not allow any other public service vehicle to be run—virtually to wipe out quality, safeguards and standards as required by law, and to do it with this one peculiar category of fare-paying bus. There will be no other fare-paying bus on the road, if the Bill goes through as amended by the Lords amendments, which will not require the series of statutory safety standards to which I have referred.
The Minister, by supporting the Lords amendment, totally discredited his declared intention when, on introducing the Bill on Second Reading, he said: "I intend in this legislation to provide for the maximum of competition in bus services compatible with having no reduction in safety standards." I have paraphrased the Minister's words, but I trust that he will accept that the paraphrase accurately reflects the intention he announced in the House.
What the Minister has done in this case is to maximise competition in a certain narrow area—the area in which he will make it possible for education authorities to run their school buses in competition with other local bus services. He will maximise the competition, but he will do it at the cost of wiping out completely a whole series of safety standards considered by the Opposition to be absolutely fundamental.
Under this provision, an education authority is enabled to run a fare-paying service with buses driven by men and women who have no public service vehicle driver's licence—a service run with buses which cannot be examined by the Department's inspectors to ascertain whether they comply with safety standards; a service run with buses which are not required to comply with initial design or construction standards which


apply to other public service vehicles. An authority can run a service in which no bus can be prohibited from running when it is unfit for the purpose of carrying passengers. It can run such buses and have them managed by people who could not qualify for public service vehicle operators' licences.
This is a total disgrace when set against the standards which have been built up carefully since about 1930, over a period of 50 years, to ensure that buses run on public bus services in this country are subject to good, high quality, independently tested safety standards, and to ensure that those who maintain the buses operate them and drive them are properly trained and qualified for the purpose.
In the light of what the Minister said in introducing the amendment, it is worth noting—

Mr. Fowler: Before the right hon. Gentleman absoutely takes off, will he tell the House why it is that for decades these buses have been carrying school children without PSV licensing, why that has been successful, and why his Government did nothing about the position to which he is objecting?

Mr. Booth: I have made it clear, as did my hon. Friends in Committee, that we have no brief for any legislation which enables any buses to be run in this way. We have never sought to defend that position in Committee. The Minister will recall that in Committee we sought to move an amendment to change the position, and my noble Friends in another place sought to move a similar amendment. It has been resisted by the Government. But, in any case, that does not deal with the matter arising under the amendment now before the House.
Under Labour legislation there was no provision for local education authorities to run local bus services on a fare-paying basis. This is a new category of vehicle, in statutory terms, that the Minister is seeking to create by the Lords amendment.
While all the objections which I have mentioned to the sweeping away of these safety standards would be true in all the areas of England and Wales in which they would apply, it is worth noting in passing that in trial areas the vehicles would not even require road service licences, so that at no stage would they

be subject to any check by a traffic commissioner.
It is difficult to judge which is the most serious lowering of safety standards in the clause. If I had to choose one, it would be waiving the requirement to have a driver qualified to drive a public service vehicle. To allow on our roads buses carrying fare-paying passengers driven by drivers without PSV licences puts at risk an important aspect of road transport.
The general principle is recognised in almost all spheres of public transport. Who would think of allowing a plane to take off from Heathrow without a qualified pilot? Who would think of allowing a liner to sail across the oceans without a qualified captain, engineer and navigator? Yet the Government think that it is all right to turn vehicles loose on the roads without qualified drivers. A man or woman who fails to obtain a PSV licence and cannot work for a private or public bus company will be able to work for an education authority as a bus driver. That is the situation which the Minister is creating under the clause.

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am creating a situation, but it already applies. This is the position as it affects schoolchildren. He must address himself to that.

Mr. Booth: The Minister cannot expect us to be so naïve as to believe that, because the law has made a specific and narrow exemption, which we are not prepared to defend and which we sought to change by amendment to the Bill, that is a justification for extending a weakness in our law. If the Minister believes that it is right for local education authorities to run public service vehicles without safety standards, why did he stop at buses run by education authorities? Why does he not allow buses run by district councils and private bus companies to operate under the same rules? He cannot expect us to accept that the present anomaly should be extended.
I insist upon my point. The law has not, and does not, allow local education authorities to run local bus services, using school buses, for fare-paying passengers. It is argued that no education authority would run the risk of putting vehicles on the road without qualified drivers. If local education authorities do not want to run vehicles


without qualified PSV drivers the exemption is unnecessary. More seriously, there is reason to believe that some local authorities will take advantage of the amendment. They will run buses driven by people who have not obtained PSV licences.
10.45 pm
The Minister is creating another category. Local education authorities will be able to balance safety requirements against costs. The Government are pressing local authorities to cut costs, and there is evidence that some are doing so at the expense of safety. For example, the local education authority for Cumbria, in which my constituency lies, has withdrawn "lollypop" men from many crossings. That is one simple but important example of an authority that has been prepared to balance safety against cost.
It is not merely a question whether local authorities are responsible. I believe that they are responsible bodies. However, even responsible people make mistakes. Responsible people can lack qualifications and judgment when faced with the technical issues involved in operating a safe bus service. The law relating to bus safety developed because the House made judgments that were based on experience of public service operations. That experience showed that safety required independent checks and tests. Safety also requires the uniform application of operational qualifications and standards if buses are to be run properly.
Certain Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 41 deal with the issues on an individual basis. One amendment relates to the powers and facilities for inspecting public service vehicles. The law gives officials of the Department of Transport who are qualified mechanical engineers access to public service vehicles at all times in order to evaluate their fitness to carry passengers. The Lords amendment makes sure that those qualified engineers, who are servants of the Minister, cannot examine local education authority buses.
Another Opposition amendment deals with the safety of public service vehicles and their initial design and construction. I admit that there is a weakness in the law, because the provision has never applied

to buses used by local authorities solely for the purpose of conveying schoolchildren. The Lords amendment covers buses that are run on local bus services. Since the introduction of design and construction legislation, such a provision has never existed.
Another Opposition amendment seeks to leave out '17'. That section of the Act deals with the power to prohibit driving unfit public service vehicles. Without that power, a vehicle that an inspector would put off the road, if he had the chance, because he thought it a danger to life and limb, would be able to run.
Another amendment seeks to leave out section 18 of the 1960 Act. That is slightly misleading since it means leaving out sections 18 to 25, which deal with all the qualifications for operator licensing. The House has an opportunity to choose what safety standards should apply to such buses. I urge the Minister not to put us to the test on the question whether the bus should have a properly qualified driver. I hope that he will accept that.
Finally, I make it absolutely clear that my hon. Friends and I are not saying that the law should not make provision for paying passengers on buses which carry schoolchildren if those buses are run by local education authorities. We are not saying that local authorities should not be allowed in certain circumstances, and subject to road service licensing qualifications, to use those school buses at other times to provide local services. We readily admit that by having those provisions within our law we may in some areas be able to build on existing bus services in a way which is helpful to the community. In other areas, we may be able to sustain existing services in a way which is more economic and efficient than at present.
However, where this is to be done, local education authorities must not be brought into this new area at the cost of abandoning safety standards. To do so is not only illogical but irresponsible. It would be a major setback for quality control on public transport. and as such it should be rejected by the House.

Mr. Peter Fry: I have in previous debates on Report declared my interest in this matter. My reason for making a contribution at this stage is to express publicly some of the concern that is felt in many sections of


the bus industry about this group of proposals for buses used by local education authorities.
I make it quite clear that I am far from opposed to the idea of using the vehicles that are available to supplement or increase the bus services in this country; I have advocated such an extension for many years. But we must consider these proposals in the light of the other proposals in the Bill, and in the light of the fact that we are hoping, despite the problems, that those who operate bus services at present will think of ways to develop new services where services do not exist.
Therefore, the Government have some obligation to bus operators, whether they be in the public or private sector, to ensure that they get fair treatment. This is why the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents all sections of the industry, and myself have some misgivings about the Government's proposals. I am slightly unhappy that this set of proposals appeared at such a late stage. We have known for many years that these vehicles were available, and we have known that the law would need amending if they were to be so used. Yet we had to wait until the Bill reached the other place before the proposals were put forward. Why did it take such a long time for the proposals to see the light of day? I accept that there might be a perfectly rational explanation, but, in view of some of the things that were said in another place, I think that an explanation is necessary.
As I have said, in no way do I oppose the principle that these vehicles should be used, but the question of safety is one which we often press when we are in opposition. We talk about the liberalisation of the licensing system. We stress all along that we want to see no reduction in the very high standards of safety shown throughout the industry. I suggest that there are certain risks attached to the proposals. They are not monumental, and they do not make a make-or-break difference to bus operators. None the less, this is the occasion when they should be mentioned.
First, there is the risk of these vehicles, with the new requirements or injunctions upon the traffic commissioners, actually causing competition with existing services, which, although not entirely parallel, may have the effect of causing a cut

back of these services. Because of the way that cross-subsidisation works, we may find that some services are withdrawn.
I am aware that there are only about 250 such vehicles throughout the country, but if, after the Bill becomes law, we find that there are thousands of them, we should need to amend the law again to return us to the present position.
It is not unknown for there to be antagonism between local authorities that are bus operators and county councils in charge of the areas where those services operate. Under the Government's proposals it will be possible for a county council to undermine the services of a bus undertaking. The fears of those undertakings need to be allayed.
There may be a county council that wants to undermine the services of a private bus operator. There would be an unfair degree of competition between vehicles operated by such an LEA and those operated by a private operator. These are not enormous problems, but dangers exist and I should have liked the Government to answer the industry's fears. Those fears have not been allayed.
My noble Friend Lord Bellwin said in another place:
I have concluded that it would be wrong to subject the drivers of school buses belonging to local education authorities to public service vehicle driver licensing when they are carrying farepaying passengers.
I was particularly concerned at his subsequent remarks:
Having said all that, I hasten to add, in all fairness, that the present law is itself illogical.
It is worth considering the anomaly that exists. My noble Friend referred to it:
There is an anomaly here, and it is something which we should, and indeed shall, be looking at, though there may be no simple solution, since many people—such as fitters, for instance—have to drive buses in the course of their work.
It may be some comfort … if I say that we intend to look at the whole area of large passenger vehicle driver licensing, but this is not a matter that can be dealt with in this Bill at this time."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 1980; Vol. 410, c. 1230–32.]
Why not? The Bill is intended to liberalise the licensing system—a purpose which I commend—and it was known that buses used for school transport were to be included. Why was the question of removing the driving licence anomaly


not considered? We are making flesh of one and fowl of another.
The statistics prove that there has been no history of accidents in this area. But that is not the line that I am taking. The way that the amendments are framed is unfair to existing bus operators, including those who have difficulty in getting PSV drivers. Despite the unemployment situation, such drivers are in short supply in some parts of the country. The other difficulty, related to the safety of the vehicle, is that they have to buy a vehicle that is expensive and must conform with strict regulations. They will feel that they are being subjected to unfair competition.
11 pm
I should like the Minister to answer the points that I have put forward. The industry feels that its representations have not been fully considered. It would not have felt so aggrieved if my right hon. Friend had accepted the point about the drivers. If vehicles that were to be used for stage carriage services were required to have drivers with PSV licences, the industry would have accepted the Government's proposals, even though it might not have liked all of them.
That sort of compromise is now required. If the noble Lord, in another place can say that the anomaly exists, it is up to my right hon. Friend to remove the anomaly and to remove the unfairness.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: If there is an insistence on PSV licences, would my hon. Friend insist on those driving without them being sacked?

Mr. Fry: No. I do not consider such a move necessary. There could be a period during which people who are already driving would continue to drive. This would be a matter for my right hon. Friend. I accept that they can drive school buses now. On buses used for stage carriage services, some change would be needed. I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure me on these points. Otherwise, I am not sure that I can support him in the Lobby on the issue.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I regard the basic law that the House of Lords has amended as scandalous. It is wrong, as my right hon. and hon. Friends and I pointed out in

Committee, that safety regulations covering school buses should be less stringent than the regulations applying to other forms of bus transport.

Mr. Iain Mills: Why did not the Labour Government do anything about the matter?

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) represents the parents and children of Meriden, he will perhaps join with Opposition Members in getting through an amendment to change the law to provide such protection. I was not a Member of the House when previous transport legislation was passed. I am not suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister were aware of the anomaly before they considered the detail of the Bill. It is foolish for any Conservative Member to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) should have known of it.
However, once an anomaly that acts to the disadvantage of schoolchildren came to the knowledge of the Minister, it should have been put right. It is a disgrace that it was not put right in Committee or on Report. I recall the Parliamentary Secretary saying:
That is a very wide exemption indeed. It takes such vehicles outside the operators' licence requirements, vehicle inspections, and so on … it is, I believe, defensible. First, these are elected and responsible local authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 22 January 1980; c. 431].
So are many public transport operators. We have, nevertheless, insisted that those public transport operators, whether in private or public ownership, should comply with stringent regulations to ensure the safety of passengers carried in those vehicles. This Bill should have been used as an opportunity to provide the extra protection. It seems absurd for the Government, via amendments in the House of Lords, to extend this relaxation. That is what it is. It is not even maintaining the indefensible status quo. It is extending the indefensible reduction in safety standards on buses. Nothing that the Minister can say can justify this extension.
It seems possible that we shall get an extension of school bus services or of profit-making services which an education authority decides to operate so that it can bring in a bit of cash and, perhaps,


help to cross-subsidise its schoolchildren's use of the buses. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, we may well reach the stage when there will be many more buses exempted from the regulations. One exempted bus is wrong, and we certainly should not be going in for an extension.
There is another aspect to this matter. I am not sure that I wholly accept the idea that it is wholly good and wholly beneficial to take fare-paying passengers on school buses. There are discernible advantages, in that there are spaces which may be filled, but, on the other hand, we could see a deterioration in school bus services as the operators of those services started shifting their routes about to maximise their income from the use of the school buses to raise money from fare-paying passengers rather than making sure—[Interruption.] I do not understand why Conservative Members do not follow my argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do.''] I shall have to start again. it is probably because they have never used buses themselves. They may own bus companies, but they do not use the buses.
At present school buses run to provide a bus service for schoolchildren. This provision is intended to make it easier for those buses also to conduct fare-paying operations.

Mr. Iain Mills: Congratulations.

Mr. Dobson: We are apparently united so far. After I have repeated it twice, Conservative Members apparently understand it.
The next stage in my argument is that, for the sake of getting in money, it is quite possible—it is certainly foreseeable with some of the penny-pinching evil showers who have run education authorities—to envisage the commencement of retractions of the school bus service so that buses are available to raise money instead of being used for school bus services. I hope that Conservative Members follow that argument.
It seems to me that even the extension of the idea of such buses being used for people other than schoolchildren will not be wholly beneficial. It may be. But even if it were to be wholly beneficial, there is not one shred of justification for carrying over into this commercial

field the indefensibly low standards which we presently apply to school buses.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Opposition amendments and give an undertaking to the House and to anyone whose children use school buses that at the next opportunity that he gets to introduce a Transport Bill he will wipe out this anomaly altogether.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not intend to detain the House for long, because unfortunately—or fortunately—I was not a member of the Standing Committee which discussed the Bill. I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, whose membership, along with some members of the National Union of Railwaymen, form the bulk of the holders of PSV licences.
I am concerned about this amendment because of the points made partially by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) which I do not wish to reiterate, except to say that the provision to allow less well qualified drivers on certain routes and in certain circumstances seems to be a backward step.
I wish to raise some of the issues which arise from the amendment. They are issues of definition which should be pursued carefully.

Mr. Roger Moate: I take up the point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and note that he expressed support for the point made by my hon. Friend, which was basically that these drivers should have PSV licences. Is it not likely that the 250 drivers of the buses belonging to local authorities, or a large number of them, are also members of that union? Is he not saying that those drivers should have PSV licences and that if they fail to get them they could lose their jobs?

Mr. McNamara: It does not follow that because they work for local authorities they are members of a union, though I believe that they should be. They may well be members of other trade unions. I was pointing out that there was an identity of interest here between the members of my union and the


members of the NUR, who, by historical anachronism, also drive buses and the members of the General and Municipal Workers Union who drive buses. I was seeking to inform the House of my particular interest in my union, the TGWU.
I wish to examine some of the points made in the amendment which have not been properly explained to us. First, I wish to look at the definition of what is a school bus. In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of new clause F we see the phrase "use a school bus". In paragraph (b) we see
use a school bus belonging to the authority".
It seems to me that there is a degree of distinction between a school bus as it is commonly known—in my constituency it would be a bus belonging to the Hull corporation transport authority—and a school bus belonging to an authority which, conceivably, would be a school bus allegedly belonging to the Humberside education authority.
That brings me to the question of the 250 drivers. When is a school bus not a school bus? Is a bus which is leased, licensed or used for a particular number of hours by a local education authority a school bus belonging to the authority according to the terms of subsection (1) (b) and the definition of school bus contained in subsection (3)?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): En case I forget that point in winding up on the general issues, let me say that a school bus is defined in subsection (3) as a bus belonging to the authority—that is, a bus owned by that authority. A contract bus which is owned by an outside body hired by the local authority to provide school transport at particular hours of the day is not covered by this. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) pointed out that we are dealing with very few buses indeed. We are dealing with those owned by education authorites which are used as school buses for carrying non-fare-paying passengers.

Mr. McNamara: I come back to the point. I do not understand why we have the definition of school bus in paragraph (a)—
use a school bus"—

and in paragraph (b)
use a school bus belonging to the authority".
Either it is used as a school bus belonging to the authority when it is being used to provide free school transport or it is not. A clear definition is lacking. There is a point in the drafting which needs seriously to be examined.
The Minister said that under subsection (3) "belonging" means "belonging" only if the vehicle is wholly owned by the authority. What would happen, therefore, if one local authority rented or let out a bus on contract to another local education authority? That happens particularly in county areas. In those circumstances, to whom does the bus belong and in what circumstances would it be proper for fare-paying passengers to be carried on that bus with or without the pupils?
11.15 pm
What will happen when a local education authority runs a service in competition with another transport organisation, be it private local authority or local passenger authority? In my area of the East Riding there imght be a bus picking up pupils from small isolated villages and picking up fare-paying passengers to take them to a small town such as Withernsea, Hornsea or Driffield. On that basis, the normal statutory undertaking might decide to cut its service. Is the Minister aware that that will leave a service on only five days a week and a much diminished service in school holidays? These are the problems that arise with this provision. They can have important consequences for life in rural areas.
Under the definition, a school bus is
a motor vehicle belonging to that authority which is used by that authority to provide free school transport".
It could be a mini-bus, a two-seater, a charabanc or anything which is propelled by an internal combustion engine. If that is the case, what sort of service will be provided? The hon. Member for Wellingborough has raised the question of the quality, training and experience of the drivers involved, and he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) raised the question of the safety of construction. What responsibilities will have to be carried by local education authorites in terms of


insurance and other additional costs if they accept this particular and peculiar power of operating without PSV licences? What protection will a passenger who is carried in these circumstances have?
The Lords amendment contains a hornets' nest of legal difficulties, social consequences and financial implications which have not been properly considered. I urge the House to reject the amendment. It will be impossible in the circumstances under which we are operating to get a proper and careful examination of the full implications of the clause which is unnecessary, can be dangerous to the public and could result in no improvement in passenger services.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston-upon-Hull, East): The issue has become clear during this debate, and it seems to be a matter between the two sides of the House. We are dealing with buses owned by the education authorities. At present there are only a few such buses, but we cannot be convinced that there will continue to be only a few. These buses can carry fare-paying passengers provided that it is agreed by the commissioner and provided that the journeys are associated with educational activities. The Bill proposes to make the conditions and standards for those buses similar to those for public service buses carrying fare-paying passengers. The point has been made by the Minister that the present standards for the buses and drivers are similar to those required in the Bill. That is a fair point, but there is an essential difference. The Government are radically changing the transport industry, and the checks and controls on that industry.
We are concerned about how we should deal with the buses that are presently owned by the education authorities which, under this clause, will be able to enter into business with other bus operators. The Minister may argue that if the buses were safe enough for children some years ago, they will be safe enough for adults now. But that is not reasonable when we consider the present provisions of the Bill and the present philosophy of the Government in regard to public service vehicles. We do not require the same standard for public service vehicles. We would impose a far more stringent standard for public service vehicles carrying fare-paying passengers.

It is proposed that these buses which have essentially been used to carry schoolchildren will now be able to follow routes and offer a service to fare-paying passengers. Should not we raise the standards of the present education buses to those that we require of public service vehicles, rather than lower the standards of buses carrying fare-paying passengers to those of education authority buses?
In Committee and in another place we moved an amendment stating that there should not be a distinction. It may be an anomaly of the past, and it may be illogical in present legislation, but, as we are in the process of radically changing the legislation, is not this the time to examine the changes and level up rather than level down—a view that is often expressed by the Government in other areas of policy?
We say that the standards for education authority buses should be the same as those for public service vehicles. How can the Government justify giving special privileges to the education authorities? The majority of authorities issue contracts for education bus services. In Humberside, the Hull corporation is the major contractor for the education services in the area. The buses which are used are public service vehicles, and the same standards apply for our children on both types of bus as apply for fare-paying passengers. The question, therefore, is why we should allow a bus, albeit owned by the education authority, to pick up fare-paying passengers when it is of a lower standard than we expect of other major bus operators. That is the crux of the argument.
Ministers both in another place and here have argued that an education authority is a public authority, and that it therefore sets standards which we can accept. It has already been argued that 95 per cent. of bus services in this country are provided by the National Bus Company and other municipal operators. There is a case for saying that the standards should be the same, but Parliament has not done that. We have said that there should be better standards on public service vehicles, because we lay down quality controls and safety standards and require a higher standard of driving capability. In those circumstances, we cannot accept anything less for buses which are owned by the education authority.
It has been said that only a few buses are involved. However, one should bear in mind the pressures which local authorities are under at present because of public expenditure cuts. That is particularly so in education, where massive cuts have been implemented by various education authorities which looked forward to reducing their transport bill as a result of an amendment to the Education (No. 2) Bill. That was thrown out by another place. It was intended primarily to reduce expenditure on bussing children. As the local authorities have now been denied that economy, they may look to other means of making their reductions in public expenditure. It may well be that some of those authorities feel that they can run an education bus service much cheaper than the present system, which is mainly operated by public service vehicles.
Indeed, if the standards required of public service vehicles are higher in respect of quality and safety controls, inspections and higher standards of driving, it is reasonable to assume that in the main it will be cheaper to operate a service which requires a lower standard of the operator, the bus and the service. Our fear is that local authorities will begin to purchase buses which are not of the same standard as other fare-paying public service vehicles. As an inducement, they may allow them to be used for fare-paying passengers when the schools are not in use, such as at holiday times.
If one looks at my area of Humberside, one will see how much it is saving by not implementing a concessionary cheap fare system and by refusing to give to Hull anything like the amount of money required from the transport supplementary grant and revenue support. It may well be attracted to such an idea. Indeed, only yesterday the industry sent me an advertisement put out by the Humberside education authority advertising for drivers for a 45-seater coach. They will be required to work approximately 10 hours part-time a week, and the normal full driving licence will be sufficient. Frankly, we shall see that sort of thing develop, because it is already happening in advance of this Bill. The authority is advertising for part-time drivers at a lesser rate of pay, although there is also a full-time rate.
The point is that that is an indication of how a number of authorities will begin

to develop a service, ostensibly for education, but sweetened by the possibility that they may be able to raise income by offering a fare-paying system. That is a matter about which bus operators will normally be concerned. The corporation in my area, for example, operates a network system and the school service contract income is an important source of revenue, enabling it to maintain peak hour services. If that contract income is affected, it will mean a reduction in services, an increase in fares and less efficient services.
11.30 pm
The Bill is supposed to increase competition, on a fair basis presumably, without reducing safety standards. This provision will reduce safety standards. I hope that the Minister will say why there should be lower standards, why an education authority should be allowed to function in this way without having imposed upon it the normal operating requirements imposed upon other transport undertakings. Such a provision will mean a reduction in standards and will undermine competition, which the Government claim to support. Accordingly, we reject the proposal.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope. briefly, to persuade the House of the most important point, namely, that the Government are not in any way intending to jeopardise the safety of schoolchildren or anyone else. We are sensitive to the need to maintain the highest possible standards of safety for those who travel in buses. We have not embarked upon any policy changes in the Bill which endanger public safety, in our opinion. It is against that background that I would like to explain the modest policy change which has been made by these amendments and which, I suggest, is perfectly consistent with the safety of passengers and everyone else.
The change is modest because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) accurately pointed out, we are concerned with comparatively few vehicles, although the numbers may grow. The few vehicles we are concerned with are those owned by local education authorities and used as school buses. Lords amendment No. 41, the key amendment, makes it clear that it is only those buses which are school buses with which we are concerned.
The policy change we are seeking to achieve, at the request of some of the local education authorities, is aimed at making slightly more sensible use of these few buses owned by the authorities.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara).

Mr. McNamara: To whom do the buses belong? If they are used by a school, do they belong to the school or to the local education authority?

Mr. Clarke: It depends whether it is a local authority school or a private school. Here we are talking about buses owned by the local authorities. We are particularly talking about those owned by a local authority when it comes to the possibility of using them on stage carriage services, which is what is providing the source of concern and the anxiety in this debate.

Mr. Dobson: Can we clear up the question of numbers? The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) talked in terms of over 200 buses being affected. In the debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to 900. That seems to be a substantial discrepancy.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member interrupted too soon. I was about to refer to 600. I shall explain the reason for the difference. It is that no one has ever bothered to count—because they are not subject to controls—exactly how many local authority buses are owned by local authorities. Not many local education authorities own their own buses to provide school services. The bulk of the school transport is contract. I say that we are uncertain, but the figure is in the hundreds—perhaps 600 to 900, I do not mind. That is the number actually owned by local education authorities. The Inner London Education Authority, if it owns buses—and it may well do—is not, as far as I am aware, contemplating setting up stage carriage services in London in competition with London Transport.
What we are talking about are a few shire counties serving rural areas. Those counties have put to us the sensible proposition that in areas at the moment somewhat under-served by passenger services of all kinds they own a few school

buses which can be used for only a few hours in the morning and evening but which otherwise sit around all day, and they could be used to provide a modest addition to the passenger transport services in the villages from which at the moment they are allowed to take only schoolchildren to and from the town school.
Those are the few buses with which we are concerned and, as the amendment makes clear, any further relaxation would apply only to buses belonging to local education authorities. The buses with which we are concerned are used to provide free school transport for schoolchildren and also, by a relaxation allowed by the House in 1953, to carry fare-paying schoolchildren to fill the empty places.
At the moment those buses are not subject to restrictions of the kind that are being demanded by those who have spoken in this debate. For decades they have run without PSV drivers and without all the restrictions of PSV licensing; because essentially they are run by reputable bodies. They are not run by get-rich-quick, fly-by-night operators. They are run by county councils, without the constraints of PSV licensing, to take children to school, and no one has complained about that.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) pleads that he has only just become a Member of the House so he cannot be blamed for it, but the fact is that for decades the system has gone on and nobody has dreamt of claiming that these buses have to be driven by PSV drivers or be subject to the various controls that are described.
What is being suggested is that using these buses, which have been operated in this way for decades—it may be right that many hon. Members were not aware that they were not subject to these controls—is wrong. The reason for the practice is that there is no accident record and no history of pressure to change the system. No one has suggested that anybody has been jeopardised by the arrangements under which the buses have been run for just about the full extent of living memory.
What is now suggested is that in the spare time during the day they should be allowed to engage in stage carriage services if there are a few local education authorities which would like to do so.


The result would be to make more sensible use of those buses, to extend the facility to a few villages which otherwise they lack, and perhaps—and I do not apologise too much for this—do something to reduce the cost of the school transport budget for some of those rural county councils providing buses for free school travel into the town schools.
There are some protections. It is not true that they will be devoid of any protection at all. Fear has been expressed about possible competition. This was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and by others who have spoken in the debate. They will still require road service licences. The moment they go into stage carriage service they will have to go to the traffic commissioners, and they will have to obtain road service licences on the same basis as any other operator. The protections that arise from that arrangement will be there.
The answer to the question of safety checks is that we shall not fire the present drivers and hire new PSV licensed drivers, and we shall not have the full rigmarole of full PSV controls, but they will, nevertheless, be subject to the annual roadworthiness check. We see no case for exempting them from the need to go for an annual roadworthiness check, which is the check to which all vehicles owned by PSV operators will be subjected. There will be that safety check.
We are dealing with a modest number of vehicles run by reputable bodies—local education authorities. The concession is confined. It is only school buses that they can use. They are subject to the road service licensing system, and it seems to us that there is no reason to bring in new restrictions. That is the point of these amendments. They do not introduce any new exemptions. We are not removing any restrictions on these buses. We are allowing these buses to operate in exactly the same way as they do now.
The Opposition amendments seek to introduce new restrictions and controls—even operator licensing. Before any local authority was allowed to run half a dozen buses, it would require some member of the authority to acquire a certificate of professional competence and

to go through all the procedures of operator licensing. That is quite unacceptable. The present system has worked quite satisfactorily for schoolchildren, and it can stand a modest extension to fare-paying adults.
If there was any danger, I should have thought that the House would be most sensitive about the danger to children. I cannot understand why the Opposition say that the present system is all right for free children, for fare-paying children and for non-fare-paying adults. The dramatic change that we are introducing—the threat to public safety—is that those buses should be allowed to carry fare-paying adults. What sort of argument is it which says that the system is good enough for children and adults who do not pay fares but that when a passenger pays 5p it is a different matter and is a threat to public safety?
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) exploded with indignation and claimed that we were threatening public confidence in public service vehicles. That is the most arrant nonsense. This is a common sense proposal, which will be welcomed in rural areas.

Mr. Prescott: This is a travesty of what happened in Committee. We moved an amendment proposing that children on school buses should not be treated differently. We tried to correct the anomaly. An ordinary operator with six buses is required to hold an operator's licence before he applies to the commissioner to operate on the same route. Therefore, we are treating the two operators differently, although they serve the same route. If the Government wish to leave that anomaly, so be it. We cannot accept that lesser standard.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that an amendment was moved in Committee, so I shall rephrase my arguments. Apart from the amendment moved in Committee—which was not pressed strenuously—the position is that the system for many years has been as I have described. That system, under the previous Labour Government, and under every Government, has provided no restrictions for free children, fare-paying children or non-fare-paying adults. All that we are intending is that the existing system should


be extended to fare-paying adults. It is a minor extension, about which there should be no concern.
I do not wish to extend the argument, but it is not only school buses that are not subjected to the licensing rigmarole. One of the anomalies of the present law is that only buses for hire and reward have to be subjected to the licensing procedures. Many companies own buses which do not carry passengers for hire and reward. Contractors carry bus loads of men without any licensing restrictions. That has been the practice for many years. The Opposition did not spot that, and did not move amendments about it. We are arguing about an attempt by the Opposition to introduce licensing controls in an area where they are quite unnecessary. It is not possible to build on these amendments the sort of substantial arguments that the Opposition are adducing.
All that we are suggesting is a modest change, with no threat to passenger safety, which will be of great benefit to county councils that provide school transport in rural areas. They will be able to use the buses for the benefit of the population at large in the middle of the day when they are not carrying schoolchildren.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause F

FARE-PAYING PASSENGERS ON SCHOOL BUSES

Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 27, line 26, at end insert
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a local education authority may—

(a) use a school bus, when it is being used to provide free school transport, to carry as fare-paying passengers persons other than those for whom the free school transport is provided; and
(b) use a school bus belonging to the authority, when it is not being used to provide free school transport, to provide a local bus service;
and the following provisions, that is to say, section 144 of the 1960 Act (public service vehicle drivers' licences) and sections 15, 16, 17 and 18(1) of this Act shall not apply to a school

bus belonging to a local education authority in the course of its use by the authority in accordance with this subsection.

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the duties of a local education authority in relation to the provision of free school transport or authorise a local education authority to make any charge for the carriage of a pupil on a journey which he is required to make in the course of his education at a school maintained by such an authority.

(3) In this section—
free school transport" means transport provided by a local education authority in pursuance of arrangements under section 55(1) of the Education Act 1944 for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils at a place of education;
local bus service" means a stage carriage service other than a service as regards which the condition specified in section 3(3)(a) above is satisfied;
school bus", in relation to a local education authority means a motor vehicle belonging to that authority which is used by that authority to provide free school transport.

(4) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) for the references to a local education authority there shall be substituted references to an education authority;
(b) in subsection (2) for "maintained by" there shall be substituted "under the management of"; and
(c) in subsection (3) for the definition of "free school transport" there shall be substituted—

""free school transport" means transport between a pupil's home and place of education provided in pursuance of arrangements under subsection (1) (a) of section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 (pupils for whom such transport facilities are necessary) or, in pursuance of subsection (2) of that section (other pupils allowed to use vacant seats free of charge)".

(5) The repeal by this Act of section 12 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 and section 118(4) of the 1960 Act shall not affect the operation of those provisions in relation to any consent given under the said section 12 which is in force immediately before that repeal takes effect.

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: in subsection (1), leave out from 'say' to 'sections'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 133.

Division No. 374]
AYES
[11.45 pm


Alton, David
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)




Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Cook, Robin F.
Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Cowans, Harry
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John
Palmer, Arthur


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hooley, Frank
Parry, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Penhaligon, David


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Powell, [...]aymond (Ogmore)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Dixon, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Skinner, Dennis


Dobson, Frank
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stoddart, David


Eastham, Ken
Litherland, Robert
Tinn, James


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Welsh, Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Winnick, David


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)



Foster, Derek
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYE


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marks, Kenneth
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gorst, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Alison, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Aspinwall, Jack
Grieve, Percy
Parris, Matthew


Banks, Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, John (Oxford)


Bendall, Vivian
Hannam, John
Pollock, Alexander


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Proctor, K. Harvey


Best, Keith
Hawksley, Warren
Raison, Timothy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Heddle, John
Rathbone, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Blackburn, John
Hicks, Robert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rossi, Hugh


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rost, Peter


Bright, Graham
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Silvester, Fred


Buck, Antony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Bulmer, Esmond
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Speller, Tony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lyell, Nicholas
Squire, Robin


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McCrindle, Robert
Stainton, Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stevens, Martin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cockeram, Eric
Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Donald


Cope, John
Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Corrie, John
Mather, Carol
Viggers, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waddington, David


Crouch, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Dover, Denshore
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Waller, Gary


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ward, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman
Watson, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Moate, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wheeler, John


Farr, John
Murphy, Christopher
Wickenden, Keith


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Myles, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Needham, Richard



Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Tony
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Onslow, Cranley

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should point out that there is a printing error in the text of the Lords amendment. It does not accord with the Bill as it left the other place. Three lines from the bottom of subsection (3) of the amendment the words "belonging to that authority" appear. They should not do so. They were

deleted by an amendment in the other place. There is, therefore, an error in the printed text before the House.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, I argued earlier about the definition of "school bus". If the phrase "belonging to that authority" is deleted—it appears in subsection (1)(b) of the Lords amendment, but not in subsection (1)(a)


—the question whether a bus is a contract bus becomes relevant. The Parliamentary Secretary should explain at greater length. He should not merely say that there has been an error.

Mr. Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the fact that it was a late discovery. The error was pointed out to me during the Division. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. He will recall that our debates have turned on the possibility of a school bus being used on stage carriage services, when it is not being used to carry schoolchildren. The words "belonging to the authority" will remain in paragraph (b).
When I argued about the extension of exemptions to stage carriage services, I was dealing only with buses owned by local authorities. That argument, therefore, still stands. It is true that paragraph (a) provides that when a bus is being used to provide free school transport, spare places can be filled with fare-paying passengers. That could be a contract bus. With respect, we argued about the stage carriage position of a school bus that was being used not for schoolchildren but for adult fare-paying passengers. My arguments were valid. The words "belonging to the authority" on which I relied appear in subsection (1)(b) of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Booth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The argument that the Government have advanced hinges on the fact that the Lords amendment embraces only a narrow and limited category of vehicle, namely, buses belonging to education authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) made clear that he was not satisfied that it had that effect. The Minister denied that.
It now transpires, according to the Minister's statement, that a whole range of contract buses can be exempted from the safety standards. This is not a minor matter about an amendment but an important difference in principle. It places a wider meaning on the Lords amendment.

12 midnight

Mr. Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In our last debate we did not touch on paragraph (a) because it was not a subject of controversy. It is within the recollection

of those hon. Members who were here that those who spoke were extremely concerned—for reasons that I understand—about the way in which we were extending these exemptions to stage carriage services which might be in competition with other stage carriage services, carrying fare-paying adults. That relates to paragraph (b), and this printer's error does not affect that.
I apologise to hon. Members for the fact that at this late stage I discovered that this printer's error had been made, and I have tried to put it right. This is a printer's error only, and I do not think that it bears the arguments now being put forward. I hope that the House will allow us to proceed. I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Minister has a copy of the amendment that was made in the other place. May I take it that the amendment on which we have just voted is not invalidated in so far as it does not affect this issue?

Mr. Booth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to be helpful. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to speak in a moment. Do I take it that any objections could be dealt with by hon. Members opposing the Lords amendment?

Mr. Booth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on whether it is in order for an hon. Member to move an amendment to a Lords amendment to cover printing errors, or for any other purpose, after an amendment to that Lords amendment has been voted upon in the House.
I contend that the first amendment that we voted upon must have qualified subsection (1)(a) and subsection (1)(b). But the amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary is now suggesting is on the definition of "school bus", and the words "school bus" apply in both paras (a) and (b), and therefore it must have had an effect on the understood meaning of the amendment as put to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: . That does not invalidate the vote that has just been taken. The words should not have been in the Bill when it came to the House. Surely there is no injustice done to hon.


Members on either side. If the Opposition vote against the Lords amendment, that serves the purpose.

Mr. McNamara: I apologise for delaying the House on this issue, particularly to those Members who were in the House when we were discussing the matter, but it is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that this matter was not a point of contention. I specifically raised the question why the words "belonging to the authority" were in paragraph (b) and not in paragraph (a). I also raised the question of contract buses. If the Lords have taken out that phrase in the other place, contract buses may be used in order to carry fare-paying passengers as well as schoolchildren. If that is the case, there are not only the 250, 600, 900 or whatever may be the number of buses owned by local education authorities but many others as well because this opens the whole issue of contract service buses. We can in fact have buses owned by a public transport authority going along a particular route where, if it—[Interruption.] You are in charge of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not members of the Government. The point is that the driver of a bus owned by, for example, the Hull passenger transport authority who carries children to school and fare-paying passengers would not need a PSV licence because he would be covered by the exemption. On the other hand, the driver of a bus picking up only fare-paying passengers will have to possess a PSV licence. The Parliamentary Secretary denied that, and it opens up the debate again.
The Government business managers cannot ensure that Ministers are given briefs that are apposite to the amendments passed by their Lordships. That calls into question not only this matter, but the validity of the second Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard the arguments, and I have come to a conclusion.

Mr. Booth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that a difficulty has been brought about for you, as for us, by what has happened, but I must ask you to give us a ruling on a specific question of order. Is it in order for an amendment to a Lords amendment

to be introduced after a vote has taken place on an Opposition amendment to the Lords amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said that I had arrived at a decision. We are not concerned with an amendment to a Lords amendment. The words should not have been in the Bill when it came to this House. There is aften a mistake in the printing of Bills, perhaps only one or two words, and sometimes the mistake is not even noticed in debates. The vote did not affect the issue.
The most that anyone could say is that the misprint might have altered the emphasis of the argument; it would not have altered the views that have been formed on both sides of the House. Those views will be expressed in a vote, which would have been the same whether the words were in or not. The words should not have been included and, at worst, it is merely the emphasis of the argument that has been changed I shall not allow any more discussion on the matter.

Mr. Booth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I am wrong, there will be a remedy.

Mr. Booth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a point of order that is contrary to something that I have said, I do not intend to hear it. If he wishes to make another point, I shall listen.

Mr. Booth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that the words "belonging to the authority" in the definition of "school bus" affect the scope of the Lords amendment in a way that we took carefully into account. We did not overlook it. Concern was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), and we are opposed to changing the scope in a way that we have objected to in any case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I fully appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. That is why I came to the decision that I made. Whether the words were in the clause or not, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends


would have voted against the Lords amendment anyway. As those words should not be in, no damage is done to anyone. That is why I propose to put the Question.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 64.

Division No. 375]
AYES
[12.10 am


Alexander, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Alison, Michael
Gorst, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Aspinwall, Jack
Gower, Sir Raymond
Parris, Matthew


Banks, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Bendall, Vivian
Gummer, John Selwyn
Pollock, Alexander


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hannam, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Best, Keith
Hawkins, Paul
Raison, Timothy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hawksley, Warren
Rathbone, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Heddle, John
Renton, Tim


Blackburn, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rossi, Hugh


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rost, Peter


Bright, Graham
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brinton, Tim
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Scott, Nicholas


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Buck, Antony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speller, Tony


Bulmer, Esmond
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas
Stainton, Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stevens, Martin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cockeram, Eric
Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Donald


Cope, John
Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Corrie, John
Mather, Carol
Viggers, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waddington, David


Crouch, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Waller, Gary


Dover, Denshore
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ward, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Miscampbell, Norman
Watson, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Moate, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wheeler, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Murphy, Christopher
Wickenden, Keith


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Myles, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Needham, Richard



Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Neubert, Michael
Mr. John MacGregor and


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Tony Newton




NOES


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Beith, A. J.
Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Bidwell, Sydney
Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
George, Bruce
Morton, George


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Palmer, Arthur


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parry, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hardy, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hooley, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cook, Robin F.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Stoddart, David


Cowans, Harry
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Tinn, James


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Welsh, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Winnick, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)



Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Litherland, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dixon, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Mr. Joseph Dean


Dormand, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House, and I understand the reason why you wished to push forward the previous vote, but I want to raise with you one of the points you made in relation to that matter.
My first point concerns a constitutional matter. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that because the Opposition were determined to force a particular vote and the vote was lost by the Opposition it did not really matter. In relation to the deletion and its effect upon subsection (1)(a) there is the issue whether the House as a whole was misled as to what hon. Members were voting upon.
That has nothing at all to do with Government or Opposition. That concerns the House as such because you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in my arguments I asked why the phrase "belonging to the authority," was in new subsection (1)(b) and that I questioned what "belonging to the authority" meant. I asked whether it meant contract buses.
As I understand the situation, because the words "belonging to the authority" have, by some sleight of hand, been deleted even though they were moved, albeit wrongly, by the Minister when he opened the debate on the first group of Lords amendments, he moved agreement to amendment No. 41 as it was before us, not as it emerged from their Lordships.
What is the position if the House was misled—as indeed it was—because those words "belonging to the authority" were relevant both to paragraphs (a) and (b) when we had the first vote? The words were in fact made clear by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary when he replied to what I was saying and sought to make light of the matter. When he came to correct what he had said to the House, his comments supported the point that I had been making, namely, that contract vehicles would also be subject to this provision.
My first point concerns the question of the advice that was given to the House by the Minister and also the point that you made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it made no difference to the Opposition one way or the other. It may well be in the

realms of fantasy that Conservative Members, having being seized of that particular point, voted against the Government or supported them despite the House having been misled on that point. Nevertheless, with great respect, I question what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about it not making any difference merely because the Opposition would vote against it in the first place.
My second point arises, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the fact that you said that errors did occur on these occasions. I am concerned about that because the phrase I have quoted substantially affects the definition. On other matters in the Bill we have received a correction slip. We have had a correction for amendment No. 43 and a correction for amendment No. 94, but there is no correction for amendment No. 41.
The question then arises as to what cognisance the House should take of corrections slipped in, between votes, by a junior Minister when other corrections of substance have been given quite properly on a paper beforehand and could be taken into consideration when debating Lords amendments. One of the corrections is not even of substance. It simply says that the page number should be 51, not 31. However a fundamental correction in Lords amendment No. 41 was not brought to the attention of the House.
How much further can we go with this Bill, given the possibility that every time someone speaks on a Lords amendment he will be told that the phrase in question does not exist? I am not sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends should not be seeking to move the adjournment of the debate, if the Government Chief Whip is not prepared to do so, so that the Law Officers can go through the Lords amendments to ensure that there are no further corrections to be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for the manner in which he has presented his point of order. I thought that out of courtesy I should allow him to open a matter that I had declared closed.
The authorised copy from the other place is here in the Chamber. The words in question are not in it. The hon. Gentleman knows that Bills contain words that should not be there, or do not contain


words that they should. These things happen. If that first vote had led to an injustice, the situation would have been different. However, it was agreed that the first vote was not affected by the misprint. That clarifies the first point. The first vote was in order.
I said that if those words had not been in the Bill there might have been a different emphasis on the argument. The correct position was explained to the House before it was asked to vote. If the removal of those words had led the Opposition to change their minds, they would then have been entitled to support or reject the amendment. No one voted in the Division under the impression that those words were in the Bill. It was for each individual to decide whether that fact would change the view he held when the matter was explained. Therefore, I could not see that any injustice would arise. Hon. Members were still free to change their minds and to vote "Aye" or "No". That may not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but that was my conclusion, and I think that we must now move on.

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 14, at end insert—
(7) Where a fare is paid for the carriage of a passenger on a journey by air, no part of that fare shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (6) as paid in consideration of the carriage of the passenger by road by reason of the fact that in cases of mechanical failure, bad weather or other circumstances outside the operators control part of that journey may be made by road.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a small technical amendment to clarify an ambiguity in the law. It arises from the fact that most airlines make contingency arrangements for the transfer of passengers by coach between airports when aircraft are diverted for example because of adverse weather. Apparently in practice there is some uncertainty as to whether these services need road service licences.
There is further uncertainty over who should hold the licence if one is needed—the airline, the ground handling agent or the coach operator—and there have been time-consuming disputes before the traffic commissioners over that.
We see no need for such diversionary services, provided in an emergency and

on a contract basis, to be subject to road service licensing. I do not believe that anyone ever intended that they should. This amendment will put the issue beyond doubt in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 4

ROAD SERVICE LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 7 in page 6, line 10, leave out "Subject to subsection (7)".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 10, 15, 17, 18, 21 to 24, 27, 28, 34, 36, 53, 120 and 121.

Mr. Clarke: This clause brings together, in a manner which I hope is neat and logical, the arrangements that are made throughout the Bill for defences to various criminal offences which are created by the Bill. There was a debate on the matter in Committee, and concern was expressed about the danger of offences of strict liability being created.
It was the general opinion of the Committee, and it remains the opinion of the Government, that it was not the intention of the Bill to create offences of strict liability where penalties should be imposed without fault on the part of those who are charged with them. On the other hand, some doubts were expressed about inconsistencies at various stages in the Bill from point to point in the arrangements that were made for providing a defence of reasonable excuse or due diligence and the burden of proof which would fall upon the defendant in various cases.
By this collection of amendments an attempt has been made to ensure consistency throughout the Bill, to remove various inconsistent provisions and include everything in one new clause to make clear that there is one category of offences for which it will be necessary for a defendant to raise a defence and discharge the burden upon him of providing a reasonable excuse, and there are others


where the due diligence defence can be raised by the defendant. The improvements before the House are of a sort that would have commanded the support of the Committee.

Mr. Prescott: When we first received the Lords amendments, I was pleasantly surprised, having debated words such as "knowingly" and "reasonable", to note that the sections which refer to those defences have been removed from the Bill. I was reasonably surprised until I reached amendment No. 53, and I found that a new clause had been introduced. As a consolidation measure, it makes sense, but our objection is that we are leaving a considerable amount of interpretation of matters to the courts to decide when perhaps guidance could be given as to what would be a "reasonable excuse"—the words that were used in the first provision regarding the giving of information. We changed those words to "knowingly", and now there is to be an amendment to take out that word.
More guidance could have been given, and that is one of the problems in relying on litigation to determine these matters. Nevertheless, we accept this as a consolidation measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 14

DUTY TO PUBLISH PARTICULARS OF STAGE CARRIAGE SERVICES IN TRIAL AREAS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 14, line 16, leave out "stage carriage".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14.

Mr. Clarke: These are purely drafting amendments.

Mr. Booth: I do not understand why the Minister should say that these are purely drafting amendments. It appears to me that amendments Nos. 11 to 14 delete the reference to stage carriage services other than the reference in the first line of clause 14.
If I understand the clause and amendments correctly, the effect is that, as the clause will bite only on stage carriage services, only those who operate stage carriage services in trial areas will be under any duty to notify the local authorities concerned. I know that the clause has other effects, but my understanding is that if the amendments are accepted no other services which are being run will be notified to the local authority. The local authority will not be notified when someone starts a service other than a stage carriage service in a trial area, and it will not be notified when a service other than a stage carriage service is terminated in that area. That would seem to be the effect of the clause if the amendments were carried.
If I am correct, I must pose certain questions. How will the local authorities obtain the information which they require to make their transport plans and policy? Is the county authority still under a duty to produce its transport plan and policy? How will it do so if it is not notified? Furthermore, if it is not notified, how will it make a sensible determination of its transport supplementary grant when it is unaware of any services operating in the area other than stage carriage services?
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is keenly aware, as is the Minister of Transport, that transport supplementary grant is not confined solely to stage carriage services. One cannot construct an intelligent plan on which to determine which services to support by TSG unless one knows the relationship between stage carriage, express, rail services and other forms of public transport service in the area.
Therefore, I believe that this is more than simply a drafting matter. I should like the Minister to indicate whether there is something else in the Bill which places an obligation on those who run services other than stage carriage services to notify the public authority for the area whenever they start or terminate a service; or does the clause, given that the amendments are carried, mean that local authorities will not have that information, and will have no statutory right to be notified of information which appears to be highly relevant to two important functions which they are required to carry out?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I described the amendment as drafting because they do not change the meaning of the clause as it left this House. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely correct in his interpretation of the effect of the clause, as amended. But the effect of the clause is not changed. All that is happening is that we are taking out tautologous references to stage carriage, services because clause 14 begins by making it clear that it applies only to a stage carriage service
which operates wholly within a trial area.
It was in the simple hope that we could reduce the number of words and somewhat improve the language that it was proposed that all these superfluous references to "stage carriage" should be removed. Therefore, the clause always had the effect of which the right hon. Gentleman complains, and would continue to have that effect whether or not the amendments were accepted.
If the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to our debates in Committee, he will recall that the clause is primarily concerned with the problem which will face local authorities in trial areas, and which might face operators if people were suddenly able overnight to run new stage carriage services. There might even be the dangar of their going along other people's advertised routes, chasing passengers from stop to stop. For that reason, for stage carriage services, we introduced in clause 14 the requirement that there should be notice given to local authorities. It was never our proposal, and I do not recall it being canvassed earlier, that we should extend matters beyond that. I see no reason why the same strict duty of giving notice in detail should apply to express class and contract, and so on.
It is right that TSG and transport planning is not confined to stage carriage. I know of no local authority thinking of going in for revenue in respect of any holiday market in express class, contract or anything of that kind. They do not have that information at the moment. I believe that it is right that the kind of duties we are imposing on new operators in this area should be confined to stage carriage. That was proposed in this House, and all that their Lordships have done is to improve the provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 agreed to.

New Clause A

RELAXATION IN TRIAL AREAS OF OPERAT ORS' DUTIES TO CO-OPERATE AND EXCHANGE INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 16, after clause 14, in page 15, line 23, at end insert—

(1) Subject to subsection (3) the duties of public passenger transport operators under the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), being duties to co-operate with and afford information to one another, shall not apply in relation to a service so far as it is provided within a trial area.
(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) section 24(2) and (3) and the Transport Act 1968 (services in passenger transport areas);
(b) section 1(1)(c) of the Transport Act 1978 (services in England and Wales outside passenger transport areas); and
(c) section 151(1)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (services in Scotland outside passenger transport areas).
(3) Subsection (1) shall not affect the duties of public passenger transport operators to co-operate with or afford information to—

(a) a Passenger Transport Executive;
(b) a county council; or
(c) a regional or islands council,
for the purpose of the discharge by any such Executive or council of its function of coordinating passenger transport services.
(4) In this section "public passenger transport operators" means persons providing public passenger transport services within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Transport Act 1978.

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new clause is a redrafted version of one which was urged on us by Opposition Members here and in another place. It relieves operators of the duty placed on them by earlier statutes to co-operate with one another and tell one another what they are doing. Although I do not accept all that we have been told on the subject, I agree that a duty to co-operate is at variance with the principles of competition lying behind the trial areas provision.
I should point out that operators are not being relieved of the duty to cooperate with county councils. The county councils will continue to have an important role in trial areas. It is only the duty to co-operate with one another that is removed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18 agreed to.

Clause 17

POWER TO PROHIBIT DRIVING OF UNFIT PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 17, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
( ) If the person to whom written notice of a prohibition is given under subsection (3) as being the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the inspection is not—

(a) the operator of the vehicle; or
(b) if there is no operator at that time, the owner of the vehicle,
the officer or examiner shall as soon as practicable take steps to bring the contents of the notice to the attention of the said operator or owner."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 29, 31, 58, 60, 61, and 62.

Mr. Clarke: I could enter into the highly complex and technical area which gave rise to considerable concern in the interval which elapsed between the Bill leaving this House and returning. Concern was expressed by those representing the industry outside this House. They made some valid points about the effect of the Bill as it stood, particularly the effect of the definition of "operator". The point concerned the effect there would be in a limited number of cases—important cases—where one operator hired a bus or coach to another without a driver.
The Government carefully considered all the arguments and came up with this conclusion, which is designed to deal with the situation—which is comparatively rare—where one operator hires a vehicle without a driver to another operator. The intention of the amendments—and I shall enter into the technicalities further if the

House wishes it—was first to meet the concern of industry. We believe that we have done so. It is meant to allow common sense to prevail in the given situation, to make sure that the obligations regarding safety which the holder of an operator's licence ought to have towards the general public rest with the operator who is the usual owner and operator of the vehicle.
We take a regulation-making power to deal with every situation that could arise to make sure that our intention is achieved. In this group of amendments are some designed to make sure that, in the case of the issuing of prohibition notices, they are given to the owner or operator, whoever is most suitable in the case of hiring arrangements.
I could go further into the complexities of this matter, which occupied a considerable amount of my time and the time of those interested in the industry outside the House in the few weeks that have elapsed since the Bill left this House. I hope that I have given an adequate explanation of the ground we have covered. I believe that we have met the legitimate fears put to us, which gave rise to these amendments being tabled in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 17, line 43, at beginning insert
Subject to any subsisting direction under subsection (2),

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

Mr. Clarke: These again are drafting improvements.

Mr. Booth: I urge the House not to accept amendment No. 20, which amends subsection (7). The subsection relates to the removal of prohibition notices on vehicles and qualifies the powers of certifying officers and PSV examiners to the extent that they have imposed directions under subsection (2). That is the subsection under which the certifying officer or the examiner can put an irremovable prohibition notice on the vehicle until it has been repaired, tested and cleared by the official PSV station.
The Lords amendment seems to confuse the issue considerably. Subsection (6) gives that power to those same officials to cancel the direction under subsection (2). Perhaps I might paraphrase subsection (6) and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm that what I say does not misrepresent its legal meaning. The subsection says that where a notice has been given under subsection (3) any certifying officer or PSV examiner may vary the terms of that notice, and in particular he can cancel a direction under subsection (2) with which the prohibition was imposed.
That must be the meaning of subsection (6). It says in subsection (6)(b)(ii) that the certifying officer can cancel a direction under subsection (2). It must have that effect. It says that the certifying officer can alter the time at which the prohibition is to come into effect—that is in subsection (6)(b)(i)—and under subsection (6)(a) he can grant the exemptions. Therefore, as it stands, subsection (6), without any Lords amendments to subsection (7), gives that power to the certifying officer and the vehicle examiner to vary or even cancel that direction under subsection (2).
If we were to agree to the Lords amendment without considerable cross-references to its effect on subsection (2)—and on subsections (1) and (3)—we should cast doubt on what seems to be the intention of the amendment. It seems to me that the words that we are being asked to accept reverse the apparent intention of the Lords amendment. The apparent intention of the Lords amendment is contained in subsection (6), but if the Minister can advise the House that there is any way in which we or a court could read subsection (6) so that it would not give the certifying officer or PSV examiner those powers which it would appear to be the intention of the amendment to provide. I shall withdraw my objection.
I have read this provision many times in conjunction with the Lords amendment, and it seems to me that the powers of the certifying officer and the PSV examiner are there, and if we alter subsection (7) as proposed by the Lords amendment we shall cast some doubt on what is, after all, a fairly important power. An absolute prohibition notice is a serious matter anyway for the person who wants

to operate that vehicle and wants to be able to go to a certifying officer or an examiner to get this type of variation so that he can get his vehicle repaired, tested and back on the road.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has defeated me. I made the greatest effort to follow his argument, with the text of the Bill in front of me, but he lost me at an early stage. I failed to follow his argument through to its conclusion. Neither am I able to get advice from anyone who followed the argument to its conclusion. I cannot understand what is troubling the right hon. Gentleman about subsections (3) and (6).
Lords amendment No. 20 deals with subsection (7). I described it as a drafting improvement, and that is what it is. We are inserting a small subordinate clause. It makes clear that the power given under subsection (7) to a certifying officer or public service vehicle examiner to remove the prohibition in limited circumstances, clearly delineated by subsection (7), is subject to any subsisting direction under subsection (2). Subsection (2) deals with the extreme position where a prohibition is imposed on a vehicle and is irremovable until that vehicle has been inspected at a public service vehicle testing station.
This small amendment makes it clear that the discretion otherwise given by subsection (7) cannot override the prohibition under subsection (2), which is the most severe form of prohibition requiring that the vehicle is taken to a PSV station before the prohibition is lifted. That is the intention of the amendment, and it is my belief that that is all that it does. I did my best to understand the bearing that the right hon. Gentleman thought it had on other subsections, but I cannot for the life of me see that it has any bearing on the two subsections to which I referred.

Mr. Booth: I am sorry that I have not made my objection clear to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am saying that we do not need to qualify subsection (7) in that way to achieve its desired effect. I understand that the desired effect is to ensure that subsection (7) does not override subsection (2), which is subject to that check. In reading through the clause, before we reach subsection (7), subsection (6) clearly defines the powers that exist for the certifying officer or public service vehicle


examiner to deal with the practical questions arising as a result of the absolute prohibition provided by subsection (2). Subsection (6) provides, in precise terms, that the certifying officer or the public service vehicle examiner can vary the terms of the direction under subsection (2). They can cancel the prohibition notice and deal with the problems arising from the prohibition notice being imposed in ways that have been acceptable to the House until now when dealing with the Bill. We do not have to make subsection (7) subject to directions under subsection (2), bearing in mind that one has already read in the law the way in which one deals with the subsisting directions under subsection (2), who deals with them, and in what circumstances.

Mr. Clarke: It is true that subsection (6) allows various exemptions to be given to a prohibition notice for limited purposes. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that exists in order to get over some obvious practical difficulties, such as that the vehicle cannot be moved anywhere, even to get it out of the way, unless some sort of exemption is given. So that very limited power to grant an exemption for the use of the vehicle for a particular purpose—despite a notice under subsection (3)—exists. No one is querying that.
The amendment with which we are now dealing qualifies subsection (7). On the face of it, subsection (7) is a much wider power to lift prohibitions. It provides that
any certifying officer or public service vehicle examiner if he is satisfied that the vehicle is fit for service 
can lift the prohibition.
Indeed, it is open to anybody who is subject to prohibition to make an application to the traffic commissioners for a certifying officer to be sent along to have the vehicle inspected. That is a very general power. It means that any inspector, if he is satisfied that the vehicle is fit for service, can lift the prohibition.
It is not intended that that wide power should override subsection (2)—that is where on the first inspection the vehicle is found to be in such a dangerous condition that the prohibition is of the severest kind. That prohibition is not to be lifted unless the vehicle is inspected in an official PSV testing station.
We do not want that to conflict with subsection (7), because there would then be people with prohibition notices on their vehicles going to the traffic commissioners and making application for someone to inspect the vehicle, certify its fitness and lift what is meant to be a very severe prohibition. We want to make clear that there is no conflict, for that reason, between subsection (2) and subsection (7). We feel that it is right, therefore, to limit in this way the extent of subsection (7) and make it subject to subsection (2).
I now see what the right hon. Gentleman was driving at, but I do not think the same arguments arise with regard to subsection (6), and the Lords amendment does not affect it.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is he saying that the effect of carrying this Lords amendment would be that the appeal under subsection (7) to the certifying officer or examiner to remove the prohibition applies only to prohibitions which are made under subsection (1) and not under subsection (2)? Is he saying, further, that in order to remove a prohibition under subsection (2) one has to use the powers under subsection (6)? If that is the meaning, it is helpful to have that meaning on the record, because it is not immediately apparent on reading the clause.

Mr. Clarke: I believe that is right. Subsection (1) covers the ordinary prohibition. Under subsection (7) it is open to the operator to say "Please send a certifying officer, the vehicle is now fit and ready to go on the road", and the operator can apply to the commissioners for someone to be sent if the officer refuses to come.
Subsection (2) is a more severe prohibition; the vehicle has to be taken to a PSV testing station. There is no point in just asking someone to come along on the grounds that the vehicle is now fit. The vehicle has to go to the PSV testing station in order to prove that.
If the operator is in practical difficulties, with his vehicle stranded on a road somewhere, so that he cannot do anything with it without causing a serious obstruction to traffic, he can then apply for an exemption. Or, even if he does not apply, a certifying officer may feel that there are grounds for giving exemption


for a particular type and a particular use. That remains open under subsection (6), and there is no point in qualifying that in the same way as the other place has suggested that we should qualify subsection (7).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 22

REVOCATION, SUSPENSION, ETC. OF LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendment No. 100.

Mr. Clarke: These are small but useful amendments which transfer the substance of clause 22 (2) to schedule 3, where it more properly belongs, and where it now covers the death or disability of the transport manager as well as his leaving the business or losing his good repute.
I can go into more detail if the right hon. Gentleman wishes, but this is merely to make sure that the whole operation does not suddenly become illegal because the transport manager dies when he is the only person with a certificate of professional competence. It seems to be a worthwhile objective, and I suggest that the other place has tidied up the provisions in a useful way.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to.

New Clause B

DUTY TO EXHIBIT OPERATOR'S DISC

Lords amendment: No. 32, after clause 22, in page 23, line 16, at end insert—
(1) Where a vehicle is being used in circumstances such that a PSV operator's licence is required, there shall be fixed and exhibited on the vehicle in the prescribed manner an operator's disc issued under this section showing particulars of the operator of the vehicle and of the PSV operator's licence under which the vehicle is being used.

(2) Traffic commissioners on granting a PSV operator's licence shall supply the person to whom the licence is granted with a number of operator's discs equal to the maximum number of vehicles which he may use under the licence in accordance with the condition or conditions attached to the licence under section 21(1); and if that maximum number is later increased on the variation of one or more of those conditions, the traffic commissioners on making the variation shall supply him with further operator's discs accordingly.
(3) Regulations may make provision—

(a) as to the form of operator's discs and the particulars to be shown on them;
(b) with respect to the custody and production of operator's discs;
(c) for the issue of new operator's discs in place of those lost, destroyed, or defaced;
(d) for the return of operator's discs on the revocation or expiration of a PSV operator's licence or in the event of a variation of one or more conditions attached to a licence under section 21(1) having the effect of reducing the maximum number of vehicles which may be used under the licence.
(4) If a vehicle is used in contravention of subsection (1), the operator of the vehicle shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

1 am

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 45, 46. 106 and 107.

Mr. Clarke: The amendments represent a complete concession by the Government to the Opposition. We have reconsidered our position. We accept that the Opposition were right. We have had further meetings with the traffic commissioners and with representatives of the industry. We have seen the light, and we accept that there is a place in the Bill for operators of the type described and that they will fulfil a useful function.

Mr. Prescott: I can understand the Parliamentary Secretary's wanting to rush the matter. The clause has had a curious history. The provision in the amendment was originally in the November Bill. A similar clause was taken out by the Government. The only difference is a rearrangement of words. It is a little weaker because the first version made clear that certain particulars relating to


the licence should be displayed on the disc. Now that is to be left to regulations.
Will information on the disc relate to the vehicle and its operating centre? If that is so, the issue involves enforcement. A disc on a vehicle is a means of enforcing safety standards. It is a traditional part of lorry safety techniques. Professor Foster said that that practice should be tightened up.
I must refresh hon. Members' memories about the arguments in Committee. We notice the difference between the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that we were right and the Government were wrong. The Minister said that a disc was important to enforcement and safety. Apparently, there have been more discussions with the traffic commissioners, and the industry. The Government have reconsidered the matter and changed their view. Governments have the prerogative to do that. But it is a bit much that the Minister said:
When I think of outsiders observing our proceedings or reading of them, I sometimes wonder what they will make of the transport policy of the Labour Party on some of their proposals that lead only to an addition of restrictions, regulations, discs, bureaucracy and everything that will make things more difficult for the operator.
On further reflection, the Minister said:
I examined the clause, having seen the system, and asked whether it was necessary. We decided that it is not … I believe that the useful addition to efficiency and the reduction of bureaucracy, restrictions and regulations will be worthwhile to, and welcomed by, the operators."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 7 February 1980; c. 1279–80.]
We contested those arguments. The Government have not told us why they had such a conversion. Those with whom they had discussions convinced them that the clause was not necessary. We support the clause. We are still convinced about our position. We have been consistent. The Government have changed their minds and brought back the clause. We want to know why.

Mr. Moate: It would be invidious to compare the powers of persuasion of my right hon. Friend the Minister with those of my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. However, when my right hon. Friend argued in Committee, I

found his arguments more persuasive than those that have been put forward tonight by my hon. and learned Friend. I do not want to know why there has been a change of heart. I shall not oppose the provision. However, the arguments against displaying an operator's disc were very persuasive. It is an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy. The Government were right to accept those arguments in Committee. Their Lordships were wrong to reinsert the requirement for an operator's disc. I regret that an extra piece of bureaucracy has been accepted.
I place on record the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) gave an excellent quotation from my right hon. Friend. The arguments that my right hon. Friend put forward then were right. I wish only that we had stuck to that decision.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Lest any hon. Member should think that there is some difference between my right hon. Friend and myself, I should point out that I tried to give some pretty good stuff on the subject of discs on Report. I described the suggestion as bureaucratic nonsense. My right hon. Friend and I vied with each other to reject the recommendation for discs. However, we were persuaded to change our minds by the Confederation of Passenger Transport and by the traffic commissioners. The arguments of Opposition Members and others echoed in our minds. The traffic commissioners discussed the issue with us. They were not of one mind, but their experience proved valuable.
There are two reasons for choosing non-specific discs. The discs will show details of the operator and of the licence but will not relate to a specific vehicle or operating centre. One provision in the Bill states that when an operator's licence is granted there should be a restriction on the maximum number of vehicles that that operator can hold. That provision ensures that no operator has a licence that enables him to operate vehicles that exceed his capacity to maintain them in a safe condition.
We were persuaded that it was impossible to enforce that maximum, or to count how many buses someone had on the road at any one time. A non-specific disc means that a bus can be on the road only if it has a disc. The operator will be given a number of discs, and that number


is a condition of his licence. It will therefore be obvious when an irregular bus is on the road, because it will not have the magic disc in the window.
The other reason for changing our minds may be less popular. We are considering a fairer method of charging a fee for the operator's licence. It seems right to charge fees that are commensurate with the size of an operator's fleet. Subject to regulations, we are considering suggesting that the fee should depend on the number of licences issued to an operator.
I could have suggested that we were producing new arguments. However, as the disc is non-specific, it is slightly different from the provision that we debated in Committee. I thought I made a concession. I am beginning to think that the closer we move towards the Opposition, the more belligerent they become. The Government have changed their minds on this issue. The Opposition are entitled to enjoy their moment of triumph, but I am sure that this amendment is broadly acceptable to them. Even the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) cannot find any reasons for objecting to it.

Mr. Dobson: As one of those hon. Members who served on the Committee, I wish to express my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for at least not claiming that this provision has been in and out of the Bill two or three times as a result of a printer's error.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23

DUTY TO INFORM TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS OF RELEVANT CONVICTIONS, ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 23, line 27, leave out from first "of" to end of line 33 and insert—

"(a) any relevant conviction of the holder; and
(b) any relevant conviction of any officer, employee or agent of the holder for an offence committed in the course of the holder's road passenger transport business,
and to do so within 28 days of the conviction in the case of a conviction of the holder or his transport manager and within 28 days of the conviction coming to the holder's knowledge in any other case."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment restricts the scope of "relevant conviction" for the purpose of clause 23. It narrows in particular the scope of relevant convictions for officers, employees or agents of the licence holder. Relevant convictions for the purpose of this clause will now be offences committed in the course of the holder's road passenger transport business. That seems eminently reasonable, and avoids the risk to an operator who might be in trouble for failing to notify some conviction that has been incurred by one of his employees in his private life.

Mr. Booth: I welcome this amendment, which responds in great measure to the concern we expressed in Committee that if the Bill had passed out of this House in the same way as it entered employers who were public service vehicle operators would have been under an obligation to inform the traffic commissioner of all sorts of offences committed by their employees, even if those employees were not in the public transport part of the business. That would have given rise to all sorts of difficulties. This amendment restricts the obligation on those employers to notify the commissioner of offences committed by the employee only if the conviction relates to an offence committed in the course of the business and then only in the course of that part of the business relating to passenger transport. That is a considerable improvement, and it is very welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 34 agreed to.

Clause 24

DUTY TO GIVE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS INFORMATION ABOUT VEHICLES

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 24, line 13, leave out "passengers" and insert
occupants of the public service vehicle

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a drafting improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 36 agreed to.

Clause 26

APPEALS TO THE MINISTER

Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 27, line 15, at end insert—
In this subsection 'local authority' means—

(i) in relation to England and Wales, any local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972;
(ii) in relation to Scotland, a regional, islands or district council."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in at end insert—
other than a parish or community council
The Lords amendment grants to parish councils in England and to community councils in Wales the right to appeal to the Minister in certain circumstances against decisions of the traffic commissioners relating to road service licences. This is something which had never previously been envisaged in the Bill, and the amendment seeks to qualify the definition of "local authority" in such a way as to exclude parish and community councils for the purpose of appeal.
It is interesting to note that in clause 5, which deals with the granting of road service licences, the definition of "local authority" is given according to the circumstances in which the road service licence applies. But nowhere in clause 5 does the definition of a local authority extend to the parish or community council. It seems that that could lead to a considerable extension of existing law and practice and, in Government terms, additional bureaucracy which would be contrary to their intentions when presenting the original Bill.
1.15 am
The traffic commissioners have a discretion under existing law to take account of representations from anyone who they think has a proper concern in the granting of a licence. They may decide to listen to the views of a parish or community council, but before the amendment was made in another place the right of appeal had been granted only to objectors who had a right to be heard and not to those whom the traffic commissioners could choose to listen to.
I am not saying that community councils in Wales or parish councils in England do not have a right to be concerned in these matters, but by the time that the commissioners have considered an application and we reach the advanced stage of an appeal it may be proper for the small local authorities to take up their concern with their district councils. If the district agrees that the point is valid and does not run counter to its interests, it should pursue the appeal, even if a community or parish council has the facilities and expertise to conduct an appeal. In some cases, it will not have the expertise and might have to hire it. Since parish and community councils are part of the district for most road transport considerations, it would be appropriate that they should have to carry the district with them and that the district should advance the appeal rather than our having another area of appeal litigation opened up.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not think that the Lords amendment opens up a new area. It seeks to change the definition of "local authority" in this clause in order to resolve various ambiguities that have been raised with us. The original Bill followed the Road Traffic Act 1960 definition of "local authority", which we thought was satisfactory. We intended to reproduce the existing situation on appeals. However, some doubts have been expressed about that, and in order to resolve any doubt about what we mean we seek to insert a definition taken from the Local Government Act 1972 and to be specific about Scotland. The effect is that the local authorities covered by the definition are county, district and parish or community councils in England and Wales and regional, islands and district councils in Scotland.
All those are elected local authorities with local government functions, and it seems to us that if they have made representations to the commissioners they should have a statutory right of appeal against the granting or refusal of a licence. The argument seems to be about the parish or community councils, but I cannot see why those councils, which have a legitimate local government function and a definite interest in transport services, should be excluded from the right of appeal which they enjoy at present. I


do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to press that.
The right hon. Gentleman drew a contrast with clause 5, but the local authorities in that clause are those whose transport policies and plans have to be considered by the traffic commissioners. Parish councils do not normally grandly set themselves the duty of drawing up transport policies and plans, but they often know well the conditions in their community and I do not see why they should be excluded from a right of appeal and obliged to go through district councils. They are a good vehicle for local opinion, and I suggest that we accept the Lords amendment as it stands.

Mr. Booth: I do not want to prolong the argument at this late hour. I do not think that Parliamentary Secretary can deny what I say about the legal effect. The effect is to create the right of appeal. If it was not there, the appeal line would not be open to these bodies.

Mr. Clarke: It would not be open under the definition that we had. The ambiguity was about community councils in Scotland. I do not think the House wishes to go into that matter at this time of night.

Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause C

FURTHER APPEALS ON POINTS OF LAW

Lords amendment: No. 38, after clause 26, in pare 27, line 26, at end insert—

(1) An appeal lies at the instance of any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) on any point of law arising from a decision of the Minister on an appeal from a decision of the traffic commissioners for any area—

(a) to the High Court where the proceedings before the traffic commissioners were in England and Wales; and
(b) to the Court of Session where the proceedings before the traffic commissioners were  Scotland.
(2) The persons who may appeal against any such decision of the Minister are—

(a) the person who appealed to the Minister;
(b) any person who had a right to appeal to the Minister against the relevant decision of the traffic commissioners but did not exercise that right; and
(c) the traffic commissioners whose decision was appealed against.

(3) If on an appeal under this section the High Court or Court of Session is of opinion that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law, it shall remit the matter to the Minister with the opinion of the court for rehearing and determination by him.
(4) No appeal to the Court of Appeal may be brought from a decision of the High Court under this section except with the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.
(5) An appeal shall lie, with the leave of the Court of Session or the House of Lords, from any decision of the Court of Session under this section; and such leave may be given on such terms as to costs, expenses or otherwise as the Court of Session or the House of Lords determine.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 43, 108, 113 and 131.

Mr. Clarke: These amendments deal with the position where there is a right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the Minister's decisions on bus licensing appeals. Originally it was proposed to rely on the rights set down in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, but appeals on traffic commissioners' cases are not wholly and satisfactorily dealt with by the Act.
It has been thought preferable to set out clearly in the Bill the right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law from a decision of the Minister against a judgment of the traffic commissioners, including a decision on an appeal against London Transport. Those appeals will only be on a point of law. If the appeals are successful, the High Court will have powers to give a ruling and remit the case to the Minister for him to make a further and correct decision.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause D

PARTNERSHIPS AND RELATED MATTERS

Lords amendment: No. 39, after clause 26, in page 27, line 26, at end insert—

(1) Provision may be made by regulations for modifying the provisions of this Part, and any other statutory provisions relating to public service vehicles, in their application to the operation of vehicles and the provision of services by persons in partnership.


(2) A road service licence or PSV operator's licence shall not be granted to an unincorporated body as such or to more than one person jointly except in cases permitted by regulations under this section.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 52, 55, 56, 99, 102 and 105.

Mr. Clarke: This follows an undertaking that my right hon. Friend gave in Committee when he said that he would look again at the question of partnerships as applicants for, and holders of, licences. We have carried out that undertaking. We agree that the Bill as drafted was unsatisfactory. In another place, the Government, therefore, inserted all these amendments. The new clause, in particular, puts the position of partnerships beyond doubt by making clear that licences can be held by partnerships, although not by other unincorporated bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause E

DEATH, BANKRUPTCY, ETC. OF LICENCE- HOLDER

Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 27, line 26, at end insert—

(1) A road service licence or PSV operator's licence is not assignable or, subject to the following provisions of this section, transmissible on death or in any other way.
(2) A road service licence or PSV operator's licence held by an individual terminates if be—

(a) dies; or
(b) is adjudged bankrupt or, in Scotland, has his estate sequestrated; or
(c) becomes a patient within the meaning of Part VIII of the Mental Health Act 1959 or, in Scotland, becomes incapable of managing his own affairs.
(3) In relation to a road service licence or PSV operator's licence held by an individual or  a company regulations may specify other events relating to the licence-holder on the occurrence of which the licence is to termite.
(4) The traffic commissioners by whom a road service licence or PSV operator's licence was granted may—

(a) direct that the termination of the licence by subsection (2), or under subsection (3), be deferred for a

period not exceeding 12 months or, if it appears to the commissioners that there are special circumstances, 18 months; and
(b) authorise the business of the licence holder to be carried on under the licence by some other person during the period of deferment, subject to such conditions as the commissioners may impose.

Mr. Prescott: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add
'Provided that pending a direction or authorisation under this subsection the business of the licence holder may be carried on by some other person—

(i) for a period of 14 days when paragraph (2)(a) applies; or
(ii) for a period of 7 days when paragraph (2)(c) applies.'.
This is a simple point that we are pressing in regard to the new clause concerning the individual who owns the operator's licence or road service licence and who may be in a situation of bankruptcy or has had such a licence terminated by death, bankruptcy or being a patient determined under the Mental Health Act. This differs from the previous argument about whether the manager with professional competence is involved. In that case, we accept that the business should not be subjected to the problems if one could not get an immediate replacement.
We are now talking about licences in the name of the individual where a similar problem arises. The commissioners have power to allow an extension from 12 to 18 months if they so wish under these circumstances. It is felt by some in the industry that certain circumstances should be allowed in regard to death and mental health. It may take a period of time on application to the commissioners. The commissioners may have to be satisfied that the individual to whom they are passing it over meets certain requirements, especially in regard to the holder of the licence or operator's licence. We considered, in this amendment, that if the person should die, a period of 14 days should be allowed for the business to continue while the commissioners make investigations or seven days in regard to a mental health case.
On the difference in time, one can understand that when a sudden death occurs and the business is left in a considerable quandary a period of time would be required for relatives to settle


matters, far more than in the case of mental health.
Our amendment is self-explanatory and seeks to make matters a little easier in the situation in which the business is threatened by a sudden death or, as in the circumstances pointed out, where the licence becomes no longer valid.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have to advise the House to reject the Opposition amendment and to agree with Lords amendment No. 40. We are dealing here with the death, bankruptcy or insanity of the holder of the operator's licence. Lords amendment No. 40 provides a simple procedure whereby the traffic commissioners may direct that for a reasonable period someone else can hold the licence so that the business does not have to fold immediately.
I understand the fears which lie behind the Opposition amendment. It is technically, I suppose, arguable that if someone suddenly drops dead at four o'clock in the afternoon, by five past four all his buses are operating illegally because there is no longer the holder of an operator's licence. But there are two answers to that. The first is the obvious and commonsense one that it is almost unthinkable that any traffic commissioner or anyone else would suddenly start issuing complaints or trying to impose penalties on people who suddenly find themselves operating illegally in that way, because the operator has dropped dead and they happen to be out on the road with a bus or carrying on the business for the next few days. I know that that is not always an adequate defence.
The second answer to what happens if one has some traffic commissioner who, in a fit of extraordinary loss of judgment, suddenly starts bringing complaints against people for operating a business a few days after the operator has died, is that when one looks at the particular offences set out in the Bill which might be committed, one finds that the defences which we have put in adequately cover that. There would obviously be a reasonable excuse. One would obviously show due diligence, and so on. If an application was in the course of being made to the traffic commissioners, there is no way in which any conviction could be sustained and any penalty imposed.
I shall not go into the reason why the amendment was proposed by the Opposi

tion, although, as I say, I understand what they were aiming at. In many ways, it would leave uncertainties and it could give rise to difficulties, because it does not make it clear exactly who the "some other person" is who may carry on the business. In practical terms, the problems are covered by the Bill as amended by Lords amendment No. 40.

Amendment to the Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to.

New Clause G

USE OF CERTAIN VEHICLES BY EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER BODIES

Lords amendment: No. 42, after clause 26, in page 27, line 26, at end insert—
(1) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Minibus Act 1977 (exemption of certain vehicles from requirements applicable to public service vehicles) for "vehicle which is adapted to carry more than seven but not more than sixteen passengers" there shall be substituted "small passenger-carrying vehicle", and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) If a large passenger-carrying vehicle is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, then, if and so long as the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) above are satisfied, the following provisions shall not apply to the driving or use of the vehicle, namely—

(a) section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 (public service vehicle driver's licences):
(b) section 23(2) of the Transport (London) Act 1969 and section 4 of the Transport Act 1980 (licensing of stage carriage services); and
(c) section 18(1) of the Transport Act 1980 (PSV operator's licences).".
(2) In section 1(2) of that Act (persons authorised to grant permits)—

(a) at the beginning of paragraph (a) (powers of traffic commissioners) there shall be inserted "in the case of small passenger-carrying vehicles,"; and
(b) at the beginning of paragraph (b) (powers of designated bodies) there shall be inserted "in the case of small or large passenger-carrying vehicles.".
(3) After section 1(3) of that Act (designation orders) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) Different provision may be made by orders under subsection (3) above in relation to large passenger-carrying vehicles from that made in relation to small passenger-carrying vehicles.";


and a designation order made under the said section 1(3) before the commencement of this section shall not apply in relation to large passenger-carrying vehicles.
(4) In section 3(1) of that Act (power to make regulations), in paragraph (e) (power to prescribe conditions of fitness) for "vehicles" there shall be substituted "small passenger-carrying vehicles".
(5) After section 3(1) of that Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Regulations made by virtue of any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) above may make different provision in relation to large passenger-carrying vehicles from that made in relation to small passenger-carrying vehicles.".
(6) In section 3(2) of that Act (consequences of breach of regulations) for "Section 1(1)" substitute "Subsection (1) or, as the case may be, subsection (1A) of section 1".
(7) In section 4(2) of that Act (interpretation) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bb) "small passenger-carrying vehicle" means a vehicle which is adapted to carry more than eight but not more than sixteen passengers, and "large passenger-carrying vehicle" means a vehicle which is adapted to carry more than sixteen passengers;".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Booth: Would it be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I moved both of the Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 42 at this stage, or have I to take them individually?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should move one amendment and just speak to the other one.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
Our second amendment is, in line 30, after "small", insert "or large". Both of these amendments deal with important aspects of the extension of the role of community buses. I believe that it was the previous Labour Government who introduced the Minibus Act with a very specific intention of ensuring that, for certain social purposes, small buses could be run by certain designated groups, or with the consent of the traffic commissioner, without their being subject to a whole series of statutory requirements that normally apply to the public service vehicle.
What the Lords amendment does is to bring for the first time large buses into the category of those which can be run

on permits granted by designated bodies. But it omits to provide an equal right to the traffic commissioners. It will, therefore, create a surprising legal situation, namely, that the traffic commissioner who understands all the requirements related to large passenger vehicles—he is the man who has been trained and who has technical and safety requirements very much at heart—will be denied the right to permit the large community bus to be operated.
1.30 am
However, the designated bodies which are, after all, not so much concerned with the technicalities of running buses but are more concerned with the social needs of those who might apply to them, will have the power to allow the running of large buses in circumstances which did not exist before.
The first amendment deals with the other problem created by the Lords amendment, namely, that once special permits are granted by the designated body for the operation of large buses for social services the bus can be driven by a driver who does not hold a PSV licence. Thank goodness that in this instance it cannot be argued by any Minister that a Labour Government allowed such vehicles to be driven in similar circumstances by unqualified drivers. This is a horror that arises directly from this legislation framed in the Lords amendment.
All my arguments on the first batch of amendments apply here also. I still take the view that it is a dangerous practice for large buses to be driven by people who have not obtained a PSV licence. I should be loth to see that provision become law and I and my hon. Friends are inclined to oppose such a provision totally. We think that it is unnecessary in any case. We believe that those designated bodies which are seriously considering applications from community organisations to run large buses will not be inclined to grant permits—in circumstances in which they are normally obliged to grant them—to bodies which do not have among their members, or who do not employ, people qualified to drive such vehicles. The provision will also have the effect of deterring people from going through the necessary training.
This extension was asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) in Committee, if I recall correctly, to allow larger buses to be used under the community bus provision. It was moved in terms which in no way suggested that we should have large buses on our roads providing services on permits granted by designated bodies to community organisations and which might be driven by people without a PSV licence.
I hope that even at this late stage, since this amendment is from the Lords and we have not considered it before, the Government will agree that we should, if we are to grant permits for large vehicles, give the same power to the traffic commissioner as to the designated bodies. I hope that the Government will agree that the traffic commissioner must continue to have the power to revoke permits granted by designated bodies, after consultation with them, if he is not satisfied that a permit should continue in operation. I trust that the Government will not contest that proposition.
I also hope that they will agree that no desirable purpose will be served by creating an unnecessary risk in order to bring about what could be a desirable extension of an idea supported on both sides of the House when the community bus provisions were first made under the Minibus Act.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I invite the House to resist the amendments proposed to the amendment by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth).
The Lords amendment is advanced in response to an extremely helpful suggestion by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) in Standing Committee when he pointed out a deficiency in the Minibus Act. The Act was designed to help those voluntary bodies in particular that used buses for social and educational purposes but were pulling themselves into the PSV net every time they tried to charge any fare because then they were operating for hire or reward.
The Act has been very successful. No one is complaining about the way these designated bodies have used their powers and issued permits. But it has been pointed out to us, through problems in Camden and elsewhere, that it is a weak

ness in the Act that it does not extend to vehicles carrying more than 16 passengers. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has recently written to my right hon. Friend the Minister about difficulties being faced by a voluntary body in Hillingdon which is running a worthwhile community bus and is finding it difficult to cover the cost without charging fares which, if it does, put it in difficulties with the public service vehicle requirements.
We are therefore suggesting here an extension of the Minibus Act to these larger vehicles. We are doing it in a way that will not open the door to lower vehicle safety standards or to unfair competition. The new clause puts the larger vehicles within the normal Minibus Act framework, but there are additional safeguards. First, although no PSV licences will be required for the operator, the service or the driver, the vehicles will remain public service vehicles and will be subject to the normal PSV conditions of fitness. They will be subject to examination by the PSV examiners.
Second, only specially designated bodies will have the power to grant permits for these larger vehicles and we shall have to produce regulations for this purpose under the 1977 Act, but relating to larger vehicles only. It is our firm intention to designate only local authorities and to describe in the order the kinds of bodies to which they may grant permits. In this way the authorities can exercise some control over the use of the larger vehicles.
That is a perfectly adequate safeguard. Those are two important extensions of the protections afforded under the Minibus Act to smaller vehicles. The fact that they will remain PSV vehicles and the fact that we shall allow only local authorities to issue the permits should meet most of the fears.
It is argued yet again that we should impose a requirement for PSV drivers' licences. In the case brought to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, that is precisely one of the difficulties being faced. If that body is brought into the scope of licensing, it finds it difficult to get a holder of a PSV licence to volunteer to drive the bus. Similarly, to bring it within the ambit of the traffic commissioners, which is the other argument put forward in the second Opposition amendment would


impose great restrictions and difficulties on voluntary services when this is not an area that the commissioners need to regulate. We want the minimum of restraint on these highly desirable voluntary schemes, and what is proposed in the Lords amendment is a worthwhile and useful extension of the Minibus Act.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 42 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 43 agreed to.

Mr. Booth: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you make it clear that the amendment on which we are voting is the amendment that would leave out paragraph (a) in line 17 of the new clause and not the other amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are voting on the amendment that we have been discussing.

The House having divided: Ayes 13, Noes 109.

Division No. 376]
AYES
[...].40 am


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dixon, Donald
Welsh, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)



Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
McCartney, Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Cohen, Stanley
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Mr. Terry Davis and


Cowans, Harry
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Joseph Dean.


Cryer, Bob
Prescott, John





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Alison, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn
Pollock, Alexander


Aspinwall, Jack
Hawkins, Paul
Proctor, K. Harvey


Banks, Robert
Hawksley, Warren
Raison, Timothy


Bendall, Vivian
Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Renton, Tim


Best, Keith
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Blackburn, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Bright, Graham
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Brinton, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


Buck, Antony
MacGregor, John
Squire, Robin


Cadbury, Jocelyn
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stainton, Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marland, Paul
Stevens, Martin


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Chapman, Sydney
Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Cope, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Corrie, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Waddington, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Crouch, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Waller, Gary


Dorrell, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Ward, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Watson, John


Dover, Denshore
Murphy, Christopher
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Myles, David
Wheeler, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Neale, Gerrard
Wickenden, Keith


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Needham, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nelson, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Neubert, Michael



Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gorst, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Mr. John Wakeham and


Gower, Sir Raymond
Parris, Matthew
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Grieve, Percy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Clause 30

REDUCTION OF MINIMUM AGE FOR DRIVERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES

Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 29, line 41, at end insert—
or on a national transport operation when the vehicle used is constructed and equipped


to carry not more than 15 persons including the driver

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment follows the policy of maximum use of derogation from the EEC drivers' hours regulation No. 543/69. This minibus exemption interests some operators. This is something which the Confederation of Passenger Transport has put to us. The EEC regulations do not apply to national transport operations affecting vehicles with 15 seats or fewer, so we can set lower age limits for these vehicles on any journeys except international ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 53 agreed to.

Clause 35

PROVISIONS AS TO CONSENTS REQUIRED BY SECTION 34

Lords amendment: No. 54, page 33, line 11, at end insert—
( ) Where the running of public service vehicles is restricted or prohibted by any provision contained in—

(a) a local Act (including an Act confirming a provisional order) passed before the commencement of this subsection; or
(b) an instrument made before the commencement of this subsection under any such local Act,
the Minister may, on the application of any person affected by the restriction or prohibition, by order made by statutory instrument modify or revoke the restriction or prohibition."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment was tabled at the request of the varoius people engaged in the industry who were worried about the implications of a few obsolete local Acts upon public passenger service vehicles in modern circumstances. The amendment empowers the Minister to modify or revoke any provision contained in a local Act or order made under such an Act which restricts or prohibits the running of public services.

Mr. Booth: What the amendment does is to give the Minister a power to revoke

or modify the provisions of local Acts on the application of any person affected by them. At nearly 2 a.m. it is difficult to deal with such a constitutional monstrosity. The most amazing omission on the part of the Minister was his failure to explain why he should be ready to sweep away or modify the provisions of a local Act without any requirement to consult the local authority, on the application of one person. After all the local authority has gone to the trouble of promoting the legislation to deal with a specfic matter known intimately to it. There is no need for primary legislation other than this amendment. All that the Minister needs to do is make an order by statutory instrument. We have had some unhappy experiences of Ministers dealing with statutory instruments. I will not go into that now, but I must ask for an explanation of why local authorities do not have the right to consultation in this process, and we must know what sort of statutory instrument can revoke or restrict local Acts. Will it require an affirmative instrument, and what precedent is there for using delegated legislation to override local Acts in this way?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I might have known that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furnace (Mr. Booth) would not allow me to skip over any of the niceties of this amendment. His inexhaustible eye for detail is as sure as ever. I think that if I put the power that we are taking into context I can satisfy him that major constitutional issues do not arise.
We are dealing with very few, very old, obsolete local Acts. The practice in the early days when municipalities began to run public service vehicles was for local Acts to circumscribe streets and roads along which they might run. Many of those local Acts contain provisions that have not been repealed. I say "many": we can find them only in Newport, Cardiff and Leicester, and they contain provisions such as—and I quote Newport at random—that
the Corporation"—
it affects only the corporation—
shall not run omnibuses upon so much of the Western Valley Main Road as lies to the north-west of the road leading to the Cefn Smithy at the Cefn Rogerstone
and so on. I imagine that the purpose


in those days was to protect residents of the roads, and it was thought right to restrict where the buses should be run.
As far as we can discover no one has relied on any of these obsolete enactments for years, but there are those in the industry who fear that now that the whole passenger business is being opened up a little by the Bill there will be more applicants for new services and people will start invoking old, obsolete legislation of this kind and insisting that it is against the law to run a bus along a particular street.
It will be open to people who find themselves faced by arguments of that kind to make an application to the Minister, and where he feels it appropriate he will able, by regulation, to repeal the law. We are not aware of any local authority that is resisting this. Nobody in Newport, Cardiff or Leicester appears to be remotely worried. We have brought forward the amendment to allay certain fears in the industry. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his concern for the procedures in this instance, but I hope that I have satisfied him that we are not breaking major new ground constitutionally and are not undermining the position of local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Lords amendments Nos 55 and 56 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 57, in page 33, line 29, leave out from "concerned" to "the" in line 31 and insert
', whether or not any driver leaves or enters

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 59 and 91.

Mr. Clarke: These are purely drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 58 to 62 agreed to.

New Clause J

INSURANCE OR SECURITY IN RESPECT OF PRIVATE USE OF VEHICLE TO COVER USE UNDER CAR-SHARING ARRANGE MENTS.

Lords amendment: No. 86, before clause 52, in page 48, line 33, at end insert—
J. At the end of section 148 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (avoidance of certain exceptions to policies or securities, etc.) there shall be added the following subsections—

"(5) To the extent that a policy or security issued or given for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) restricts, as the case may be, the insurance of the persons insured by the policy or the operation of the security to use of the vehicle for specified purposes (for example, social, domestic and pleasure purposes) of a non-commercial character; or
(b) excludes from, as the case may be, that insurance or the operation of the security—

(i) use of the vehicle for hire or reward; or
(ii) business or commercial use of the vehicle; or
(iii) use of the vehicle for specified purposes of a business or commercial character,
then, for the purposes of that policy or security so far as it relates to such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, the use of a vehicle on a journey in the course of which one or more passengers are carried at separate fares shall, if the conditions specified in subsection (6) below are satisfied, be treated as falling within that restriction or as not falling within that exclusion, as the case may be.
(6) The conditions referred to in subsection (5) above are—

(a) the vehicle is not adapted to carry more than eight passengers and is not a motor cycle;
(b) the fare or aggregate of the fares paid in respect of the journey does not exceed the amount of the running costs of the vehicle for the journey (which for the purposes of this paragraph shall be taken to include an appropriate at in respect of depreciation and general wear; and
(c) the arrangements for the payment of fares by the passenger or passengers carried at separate fares were made before the journey began.
(7) Subsections (5) and (6) above apply however the restrictions or exclusions described in subsection (5) are framed or worded; and in those subsections "fare" and "separate fares" have the same meaning as in section 2(4) of the Transport Act 1980.""

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 93 and 133.

Mr. Fowler: This relates to car sharing. Some people are still concerned that if they take money from passengers in car sharing that will invalidate their insurance. That is not the true position. Insurers gave full undertaking two years ago, and there have been no problems, but the other House decided that greater certainty was required, hence the amendment.
We welcome the amendment as helping to dispel doubts and worry. The undertaking will continue in force and goes wider than the personal injury liabilities with which the Road Traffic Act 1972 is concerned. I think that the amendment manages to clarify the position on car sharing, and anything that encourages car sharing is welcome to us.

2 am

Mr. Booth: I shall relieve Conservative Members by giving them advance notice that I shall discuss only Lords amendment No. 86 and not the other two. Lords amendment No. 86 changes the Road Traffic Act 1972 in a way that requires all those who drive cars on the road to have an insurance for car sharing. It prevents an insurance company from selling a policy to a driver in Britain unless that policy covers him for the car sharing provisions of the Bill.
I welcome the Minister's conversion to the idea that it is necessary to include such a measure, but I remind the House that when I raised this issue in Committee the Minister dismissed it in scathing terms. He accused me of raising unnecessary scares and suggested that there was no need for such a measure. I am glad that we have converted the Minister. I hope that we are at one, across the Chamber, in agreeing that it is necessary to have stated in our law requirements of insurance for the car sharing provisions of the Bill.
That leaves us with only two problems. The first is the way in which car sharing is defined. Would an insurance company be able to refuse a claim on the ground that the policy holder has been charging

his passengers fares more than the amount necessary to cover running costs? That issue might never be resolved until the question goes to a court. Having abandoned the idea contained in the Bill on Second Reading that regulations should be made to describe what might appropriately be charged—I was critical of that provision, so I make no complaint that it has been abandoned—the Minister is now urging the House to accept a Lords amendment which still does not totally resolve the doubt, but leaves the matter open until an insurance company has to decide whether it will pay out a claim on a policy where a driver has undoubtedly been conveying passengers under the car sharing provisions of the Bill in all respects other than the amount of fare that he has charged. That will be decided on whether the insurance company takes the view that the fare was sufficient only to cover the running costs.
I suggest that the poor blighter whose policy is involved will not be likely to take the insurance company to court. If the insurance company will pay only a limited amount under the policy because it thinks that the driver is not covered by the terms because he charged too much for the passengers, the driver will be the sufferer, and he might face additional claims from his passengers.
Secondly, there is the question of whether premiums will be raised. If the insurance company comes up against somebody who can successfully contest the case and requires it to pay a claim for seven passengers in a major crash—the car sharing scheme can cover up to eight seats—a massive sum could be involved. That might lead to litigation, and the insurance company might have to pay the full claim. It would then have to decide whether premiums should be raised to cover that claim. If premiums are raised, under the terms of the Lords amendment premiums will have to be raised for every driver and not only for those who take advantage of the car sharing provisions of the Bill. While I welcome the amendment and shall not resist it. I suggest that we should be far from convinced that it will solve all the problems that arise from car sharing.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 87 and 88 agreed to.

New Clause K

ROOF SIGNS ON VEHICLES OTHER THAN TAXIS

Lords amendment: No. 89, after clause 53, in page 49, line 37, at end insert—
K—(1) There shall not, in any part of England and Wales outside the metropolitan police district and the City of London, be displayed on or above the roof of any vehicle which is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward but which is not a taxi—

(a) any sign which consists of or includes the word "taxi" or "cab", whether in the singular or plural, or "hire", or any word of similar meaning or appearance to any of those words, whether alone or as part of another word; or
(b) any sign, notice, mark, illumination or other feature which may suggest that the vehicle is a taxi.
(2) Any person who knowingly—

(a) drives a vehicle in respect of which subsection (1) is contravened; or
(b) causes or permits that subsection to be contravened in respect of any vehicle,
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(3) In this section "taxi" means a vehicle licensed under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, section 6 of the Metropolitan Carriage Act 1869, section 270 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892 or any similar local enactment.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take the amendment to Lords amendment No. 89, and Lords amendments Nos. 94 and 134.

Mr. Harry Cowans (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in subsection (1), leave out
'or above the roof of'.
During the debates today the Government have seen fit on several occasions to concede the Opposition's case. They have had second thoughts and have accepted the advice that we freely gave them in Committee. I congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, because in this instance every point raised by my hon. Friends and myself has been met, with the exception of this one small one. I appreciate that this might sound like Oliver Twist coming back for more, but it is a valid point.
The Government have accepted the arguments concerning differentiation between hire cars and taxis when we talk

about a sign on the roof. Given that they have accepted that argument by including in the clause the words
'on or above the roof",
that takes care of the roof, but, by analogy, it leaves the impression that it is in order to put signs anywhere other than on the roof, which could mislead someone who is looking for a taxi.
There is an important aspect in regard to which the public can be misled. The taxi cab and the hackney trade are governed in regard to price, whereas the hire car is not. Thereby, anyone mistaking a hire car for a taxi and boarding that car enters into a contract between himself and the driver and will not get the advantage of what he believes to be the taxi fare.
If the argument is accepted as valid that a sign on the roof can be misleading, surely the argument is equally valid if a sign is placed on the windscreen. The Government have gone most of the way and there is now a lot of good sense in the clause, after the advice given by the Opposition. But that could be ruined by not removing the phrase to which I have drawn attention, and people could still be misled. I hope that Minister will again have second thoughts and listen once more


to the wisdom expressed from the Opposition Benches and accept the amendment.

Mr. Jim Marshall: This is the third debate that we have had on taxis and private hire cars in the past four years, and tonight we have the best attendance of all, particularly on the Government Benches. I am sure that the National Federation of Taxi Cab Associations will be pleased that there is such a good attendance here tonight. I am indifferent to the side of the House on which hon. Members sit, as long as the House is well attended.
On the previous occasion when we debated the need for provisions of this kind the Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance that a clause such as this would be introduced in the other place, and we are grateful for that. But while we are grateful for half a loaf, we would appreciate the whole loaf in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) has outlined.
I should like briefly to reinforce and underline the need for the amendment that my hon. Friend has moved so ably. Lords amendment No. 89 seeks to preclude, under subsection (1)(a) of the new clause, the use of signs on the roof. Subsection (3) defines "taxi" for the first time as meaning a hackney carriage. A taxi is a hackney carriage only if it does not display a sign on the roof. If a private hire vehicle displays a sign on the side, it does not become a taxi in terms of the legislation and it is not a hackney carriage.
A great loophole exists. Private hire operators could escape if they wished. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment. It is not sufficient to eliminate signs on the roof. It is easy for private hire companies to put illuminated or florescent signs in the windscreen or on the side of the car.
Under the Lords amendment, it would be open to operators to put signs on the windscreen or side of the car describing the vehicle as a taxi. Certain private operators would be able to masquerade as hackney carriage operators. I hope that the Minister will accept our suggestion. It is made in good faith and is supported by the National Federation of Taxi Cab Associations.

Mr. Iain Mills: I said in Committee that there could be some confusion in the minds of customers looking for transport about whether a vehicle is a taxi or some other vehicle which is involved in car sharing. We are happy to accept the Lords amendment, but not the amendment to it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I commend the Lords amendment. It follows a debate initiated by Opposition Members. The suggestion was made on behalf of taxi drivers, and was supported by hon. Members on both sides who have an interest in the taxi trade. The Government were anxious to illustrate that, contrary to some fears, the Bill was not intended to be hostile to the taxi trade. We were impressed by the case, and the amendment is designed to meet it.
I am sorry that the amendment does not meet with full satsfaction. We have gone as far as we can and we are reluctant to go further. The hire car trade is fearful that if we take the restrictions or, signs too far we shall go far beyond what is necessary to protect taxi drivers and put unreasonable inhibitions upon their ability to carry out a lawful trade.
We wish to confine the new measures to roof signs. The problem arises in provincial cities. London is different, because it has tight legislation. The usual form of taxi in the provinces is an ordinary saloon car. Taxis are hackney carriages licensed on certain terms and entitled t be protected from illegal and unfair corn petition.
A few fringe people in the hire car business like occasionally to ply for hire illegally and are tempted to seek to deceive passengers into believing that they are operating a taxi. Illuminating signs on the top of the car are used to deceive. Whatever the sign says, it is designed to indicate that the vehicle is a taxi. That is the abuse at which we are aiming.
With respect, taxi drivers and their advocates on the Oppositon Benches are going too far. They say that it should be illegal to have any sign on the vehicle. Hire car operators and all car owners are entitled to put nodding dogs in the back window, flashing lights inside and whatever lettering they like on the side. We cannot impose too many restrictions on what people can put on various parts of their cars.
The Lords amendment deals with a particular abuse. Hire car operators are entitled to some protection, and we should not be persuaded to go further.

Mr. Cowans: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why a hire car needs a sign. Most companies are in the yellow pages. It is possible to ring them up. The contract is then with those who hired out the car. Why do hire cars need a sign?

Mr. Clarke: One does not have to give a reason for wanting a sign on one's car. There are other practical reasons. Hire drivers pointed out that signs enabled customers to identify the car that they had ordered. If they book a hire car to wait at the station, or if they are coming out of a dance hall they can tell that the yellow car with the phone number on it is the right one. Otherwise, the fact that it is an ordinary saloon may give rise to difficulties. It is also a legitimate and fair means of advertising. There is nothing wrong in going around with the name of one's business on the side of one's car, together with a telephone number and some description of the luxury of the vehicle. To press for restrictions on signs on the sides of cars is to inhibit the trade of hire cars, for the convenience of taxis. The Lords amendment protects taxis to the extent to which they are entitled to be protected.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I repeat that, for the first time, subsection (3) defines a taxi as equivalent to a hackney carriage. It specifically mentions the 1847 legislation. For the first time, a popular misconception is being corrected, namely, that a private hire car is also a taxi. It states that that is no longer so. However, the legislation states that a taxi is a hackney carriage only if it does not carry a sign on the roof. The private hire car can still have the word "taxi" on the side.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question, not make another speech.

Mr. Marshall: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to exclude the legitimate right of private hire operators to have names and telephone numbers on the sides of their cars. However, the

word "taxi" cannot be used in two different senses.

Mr. Clarke: A taxi is defined as a hackney carriage only for the purposes of this subsection. There has been ambiguity about the precise meaning of the word "taxi". There are difficulties in other legislation about the meaning of that word. At this time of night, I am happy to say that the broad ambit of taxi law is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is not covered by the Bill.
We have extremely limited objectives. The purpose of the subsection is to establish what type of vehicle the offending vehicle is trying to imitate. The subsection describes only the type of vehicle that is being protected. The amendment means that any sign on the roof should not try to imitate that on a taxi.
It is true that we have not proscribed the use of the word "taxi" on the side of a vehicle. Such signs do not give rise to deception. The average member of the public would be a little suspicious if he saw "taxi" written on the side in big or small letters. Some taxi drivers are concerned about the obvious abuse of illuminated signs on the roof that make vehicles look like taxis. That is as far as the House should go.

Question, That the amendment be made to the Lords amendment, put and negatived.

Lords amendment No. 89 agreed to.

New Clause L

ABOLITION OF RAILWAYS AND COASTAL SHIPPING COMMITTEE

Lords amendment: No. 90, after clause 55, in page 50, line 11, at end insert—
L. The Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee established under section 150 of the Transport Act 1968 is hereby abolished.")

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 92, 132 and 135.

Mr. Fowler: New clause L and related consequential amendments abolish the Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee. That is part of our policy of reviewing, and where possible reducing and abolishing, the quangos in this country. This committee was established in 1969 under the Transport Act 1968. It was intended to provide a forum for coastal shipping interests to discuss matters of mutual concern, and it was given power to investigate complaints about the level of British Rail's freight charges where the board was in competition with coastal shipping interests.
In practice, however, the committee has not found it necessary to meet since 1974, and during the whole of its existence has received no complaints about charges. In those circumstances the Government felt that it might as well be put out of its misery. We propose to close it down.

Mr. Prescott: This is the death of yet another quango in order to balance the new ones that have been appointed by the Government. This is the second quango of this kind to be abolished. The first was the Freight Integration Council, the abolition of which we opposed. The two committees had in common the fact that they did not meet very often, and there was a lesson to be learnt from that. Indeed, those of us who have looked at these committees know that the Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee was supposed to look to the interests of rail and shipping and ensure that fair competition was maintained between them, so that one did not get an advantage over the other. In fact, both have declined.
It is unfortunate, but anyone looking at the coastal shipping fleets could have seen—and I advocated this 15 years ago—that the combination of the various sections of the public sector shipping interests, including British Rail, steel, gas, and electricity, would have provided a major coastal fleet, and there could have been expansion to the advantage of both the coastal shipping industry and British Rail. It is unfortunate that the committee neither had the imagination nor the flair to analyse the problem and recommend solutions. On the basis of its activities, it is clear that there is no justification for continuing its existence. We could substantiate the argument for the

Freight Integration Council, but clearly we could not do the same for this committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58

CITATION, ETC.

Lords amendments Nos. 91 to 94 agreed to.

Lords amendments: No. 95, in page 51, line 10, leave out "Part I" and insert "Parts I and IV".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 96.

Mr. Clarke: These are minor consequential changes.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 96 agred to.

Schedule 1

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES: CONDITIONS AFFECTING STATUS OR CLASSIFICA TION.

Lords amendment: No. 97, in page 52, line 14, at end insert—
except where the local authorities concerned have approved the arrangements under which the journey is made as designed to meet the social and welfare needs of one or more communities, and their approvals remain in force.
(2) In relation to a journey the local authorities concerned for the purposes of this paragraph are those in whose area any part of the journey is to be made; and in this sub-paragraph "local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Greater London Council or a county council;
(b) in relation to Scotland, a regional or islands council."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the proposed amendment to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, after first 'the', insert traffic commissioners and '.
As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are discussing also the amendment in line 6, after 'the', insert 'traffic commissioners and'.
One of the effects of Lords amendment No. 97 is to allow, subject to the approval of a local authority, advertising of certain car-sharing arrangements as covered by paragraph 2 of schedule 1. Part I of schedule 1 deals with all the conditions that normally have to be met to allow the owner of a vehicle to charge separate fares in that vehicle without bringing it within the public service vehicle classification or definition.
The Lords amendment opens up possibilities that have never previously been envisaged. What started out as car sharing to be run by car owners for the efficient use of their vehicles could develop into a highly organised entrepreneurial business, embracing the idea that, given that the local authority will allow advertising to take place, it will be open to anyone with a car to advertise for others to join him in organising the provision of any series of services within the terms of the Lords amendment. That could be done by telephone through a central number or, on a wider scale, by computer, with drivers reporting their availability to a central agency. An enormous service could be organised on that basis.
Everything would depend upon the ability to advertise. Our amendment is not intended to block or wreck the Government's proposal. It merely seeks to ensure that before advertising is allowed the traffic commissioners, as well as the local authority, will have to approve it. There is a special reason for our suggestion, and a special logic in it that will not be lost on the Minister.
Traffic commissioners must have regard to how far competition between various forms of public transport in an area can run successfully, whether it is in the public interest to have another service that may conflict with existing services and whether competition is desirable or detrimental. Surely it is wrong to allow a decision on the advertising of car-sharing schemes, which will have an enormous effect on competition, to be made without the traffic commissioners being involved.
Although the local authority is involved, perhaps even as a bus operator, the basic logic of the Bill demands that

the traffic commissioner decides whether it is in the public interest that additional road service licences should be introduced Therefore he should be involved in the decision on which depends the ability to organise a new service of highly organised car-sharing arrangements, which may, in some circumstances, be highly desirable. The traffic commissioner and the local authority must both be involved.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I now understand why the right hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment, but it is based on a misconception, which is understandable, given the complexities of the matter. The Lords amendment does not open up a new field. Its purpose is to restore to the Bill a provision of the Transport Act 1978 which it inadvertently removed.
All that we are dealing with are social car schemes approved by local authorities, which may include taxis and hire cars being used by members of the social car scheme. The basic principles of such schemes will be known to the right hon. Gentleman. Some use taxis and hire cars, but there are usually various advertising restrictions on them. When the local authority approves, those restrictions can be lifted. That is the present position. That is what we intend to continue under the Bill.
2.30 am
I suggest, with respect, that control by the local authority is adequate. It would be a case of belt and braces, by way of protection for other operators, to bring the traffic commissioners into the social car scheme. Local authority and traffic commissioners' control is excessive. The reason why it is logical to leave the traffic commissioners out of the matter is that we are dealing with taxis being used as part of social car schemes, and the arrangements that we envisage are those where the owner or driver of the vehicle derives no financial benefit. These are social car schemes, which are not initiated by the driver, but where passengers or organisers of the scheme agree among themselves to divide up the total fare.
I would submit that we should agree with the Lords amendment. I invite the right hon. Gentleman either to withdraw the Opposition amendment, or it should be negatived by the House.

Mr. Booth: I appreciate that the amendment would apply to the advertising of taxis and hire cars. I indicated that it was being considered in the context of part I of schedule 1, which is headed
Sharing of Taxis and Hire-Cars.
The right to be restored, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, is a right that existed in advance of the car sharing provisions of the Bill. It therefore seems to me that the Bill, for the first time, opens up the possibility that the advertising right could be applied to a service that would embrace a form of car sharing that was not open when the right existed previously. I admit that the point is fairly narrow in terms of the competition element between the service organised with taxis and hire cars against other services covered by the road service licence when compared with the new proposition that taxis, hire cars and the new car sharing arrangements will be within the field.
Given the scope of the Bill, it is surely fair to argue that if one has a nine-seater vehicle, or a fleet of nine-seater vehicles, owned by a group of people who want to run them under car sharing arrangements and carry up to eight passengers, it must be within the capacity of modern technological communications to organise them in such a way as to provide any of the services previously covered by the advertising, but on a much wider scale. I am not averse to opening up the scope, but if it is to occur on a scale greater than hitherto and embrace a type of vehicle not hitherto covered by legislation, it seems reasonable to consider at this stage, if it was not considered previously, whether the traffic commissioner should have a part to play.

Mr. Clarke: The amendment merely repeats the wording of the 1978 Act. We are concerned only with exempting from advertising control, and therefore allowing sharing without making it a public service vehicle. We are exempting only in circumstances where the arrangements under which the journey is made are designed to meet
the social and welfare needs of one or more communities
where the local authorities approve and that approval remains in force.
That is the Transport Act 1978 designation of social car schemes. I do not think

that it can be extended to private car sharing. We are talking in the Bill only of non-profit making car sharing. I do not believe that it will bear the meaning put on it by the right hon. Gentleman, or that it can be extended in that way. His proposal would be a restriction compared with the stage that had been reached in 1978. I do not believe that the Bill arouses fears of a sufficient order to justify going back on the 1978 provisions.

Mr. Booth: I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that the amendment is not intended to bear the meaning that I attributed to it and that the provision will therefore apply only to the advertising of arrangements made with hire cars and taxis, and not to car sharing arrangements. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment to the Lords amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR PSV OPERA TOR'S LICENCE

Lords amendment: No. 98, in page 55, line 11, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
1.—(I) in determining whether an individual is of good repute, traffic commissioners shall have regard to all the relevant evidence and in particular to—

(a) relevant convictions of his and of his employees and agents; and
(b) such other information as the commissioners may have as to his previous conduct, in whatever capacity, in relation to the operation of vehicles of any description in the course of a business.
(2) In determining whether a company is of good repute, traffic commissioners shall have regard to all the relevant evidence and in particular to—

(a) relevant convictions of the company and its officers, employees and agents; and
(b) such other information as the commissioners may have as to the previous conduct of—

(i) the company's officers, employees and agents in relation to the operation of vehicles of any description in the course of any business carried on by the company; and
(ii) each of the company's directors, in whatever capacity, in relation to the operation of vehicles of any description in the course of any other business."

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I think that this is best described as a clarifying amendment. It is an attempt to redraft the "good repute" provisions of the Bill as they left this House. A certain amount of confusion was created by the original draft because it had slightly confused the criteria for judging the repute of individuals with those for judging the repute of companies. I hope that the new draft commends itself to this House, as it did to their Lordships, as an improvement on the original draft.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 99 and 100 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 101, in page 56, line 23, leave out "before 1st January 1978".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 103 and 104.

Mr. Clarke: These amendments are purely technical. They are designed to ensure that paragraphs 7 to 9 of schedule 3 really mean what they should—that they agree in every way with the EEC access directive. The previous draft was unclear in two small respects.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 102 to 105 agreed to.

Schedule 5

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMEND MENTS RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES

Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 108 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 109, in page 62, line 10, leave out paragraph 13.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment deletes from the Bill a provision for penalties for failure to keep and produce documents required for

international journeys. That is because we intend to put all the necessary requirements for keeping records on international services in separate regulations which govern the whole operation of international coach services. This provision in the Bill is therefore unnecessary. I therefore commend to the House its deletion, as the other place did.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 110 to 112 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 118, in page 65, line 22, after "2(9)" insert—
—

(a) in the definition of "commercial vehicle" for "not more than five passengers" substitute "not more than eight passengers"; and
(b)"

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Act 1977 permits various relaxations in the bus licensing system on an experimental basis, but limits those with commercial vehicles to vehicles adapted to carry not more than five passengers. This limit of five is out of line with that of eight which we are adopting generally in the Bill. The small increase in the limit will facilitate experiments with the use of commercially operated small minibuses.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 119 to 121 agreed to.

Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Lords amendments to be further considered this day.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (BRADFORD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Edward Lyons: People living in the Manchester Road area of Bradford are bitterly frustrated by the seemingly endless inertia and paralysis of the West Yorkshire county


council in the face of prolonged and numerous complaints about difficulties for pedestrians in relation to that road. They are angry about the deaths resulting from attempts to cross it.
Manchester Road is a six-lane highway, built in the 1970s, thrusting direct into the heart of Bradford. Down the centre of that road there runs, like a spine, a fence of metal railings 3ft high. That fence is a "Berlin wall", both symbolically and physically, dividing the local community, separating shoppers from their shops, banks and post offices, pensioners from their social security offices and passengers from their bus stops.
Those who produced the road have shown a total disregard for the real interests of local people, and it is no consolation that people coming into Bradford are able to race unimpeded to the city centre, when that speed is at the expense of the convenience, safety, happiness and coherence of the local community.
It is a road that is extremely unpopular along 2 miles of its route. For years there has been a constant stream of protests to the West Yorkshire county council, to the local newspaper, to councillors and to myself. The West Bowling Community Association is extremely angry, and even now has a meeting arranged for July to plan further action.
The planners have tried to ensure that pedestrians cross this road either by subways or overhead bridges spaced at long intervals along the route. Last Saturday I climbed to the top of an overhead bridge. The 32 steps were steep and high. That task is too difficult for many frail and elderly people and also for pregnant women. It is impossible for women with prams or parcels, and in winter the steps can be icy or slippery. There have been falls from the steps, and some people turn back half way up. Many cannot, or will not, use the overhead bridges.
The subways have steps—in one case 66 steps—or ramps, but these again are difficult for the disabled and others. People have been molested and robbed in the deserted passages, and women and the elderly will not use the subways because they fear attack or robbery. In a subway one is on one's own, and only the strong have a defence against

attack. Further, people use the subways to urinate and the walls are often fouled with graffiti. One lady wrote:
The subways are a nightmare to elderly people. Every day we see old people gasping for breath—some suffering from heart and chest troubles. In winter apart from smell and filth the subways are flooded inches deep in water.
Another constituent demanded that the police should patrol Ripley Street subway 24 hours a day because women and the elderly were afraid to use it unescorted. Yet another constituent wrote:
Many of us cannot possibly climb the steps and slopes of the bridges and subways.
Last year a vehicle plunged into a similar subway in Wakefield Road, Bradford at about 2 am and no one found the dead driver until 11 am because the subway was so seldom used.
The Post Office services are essential to the disabled and elderly, on a frequent basis. There is no shop, post office or telephone for about 2 miles on one side of the road. People have to cross somehow, so they cross this dangerous six-lane highway. The 40 mph limit is frequently not observed, and old people in their seventies and eighties and women with small children seek to negotiate the speedway. They run the gauntlet of six lanes of speeding traffic. Old ladies are seen climbing or squeezing through gaps in the centre railings. A woman with two children will lift one child over the fence and trust to luck that the child will not run in front of traffic while she helps the second child over the fence.
In about 1976 a woman resolved not to use the subways again because gangs of teenagers were chasing women in them. The next day she was killed on the road by a motor cyclist while seeking to negotiate the fence in the middle of the road. People are forced to engage in a deadly duel with fast traffic because they feel that there is no other way to cross the road. One sees them crossing three lanes of traffic, climbing over the fence and then crossing another three lanes of traffic.
This year alone, to my knowledge, three old-age pensioners have been killed on the road, two of them on 1 May while returning from a necessary journey to the post office. One was 82. One has to imagine women of 82 crossing a six-lane highway because there is no other effective way


open to them. No wonder people are being killed. One 73-year-old man said that he could not use the bridge because of the state of his legs, and he refused to use the subway because of fear of assault. He crosses that highway every day.
At a time when buildings are constructed to ensure access for the disabled, and when consideration for the disabled is shown by measures such as the mobility allowance, Manchester Road has been built as though the disabled simply do not exist. For two miles there is no pedestrian crossing. The motor car rules supreme and the planners have ordained that pedestrians should either scurry through the tunnels under the road or ascend to the skies above it. One appreciates that transport needs to be able to move speedily, but when a road is driven through a community there has to be a compromise between the car and the pedestrian. There is no such compromise on Manchester Road, and it is essential that pelican crossings be installed at a number of points along that road; for example, at the traffic lights at Ripley Street and Bankfoot, and also at Park Road and Parkside Road.
The proposition for pelican crossings is simple. One can either agree to it or can refuse to accept it and give reasons for refusing. One must remember that a motorist is delayed for only a second or two at a pedestrian crossing, but at present pedestrians are expected to expend much time and energy to reach a subway or a bridge and to cross in that way.
The West Yorkshire county council seems to consider a decision on pelican crossings on Manchester Road as akin to deciding changes in common agricultural policy in Europe. It is afflicted with utter paralysis. In November 1978, in response to my representations, the then executive director of transport and traffic, Mr. Naylor, said that he had put in hand a complete study of the length of road. Naturally, all of us in Bradford were happy to hear that. On 2 January 1979 he wrote that the problems were being given detailed consideration. On 4 September 1979, in response to a further letter of mine in August 1979, the new executive director, Mr. Hunter, wrote that his investigations had only recently been completed, that he intended to report his conclusions at an early meeting of the

transportation committee of the West Yorkshire council, and that he would write to me again when the recommendations of that committee were available. Silence then fell, and deaths continued on that road.
On 13 May of this year I again wrote to the West Yorkshire county council to ask what was happening. I received an acknowledgement, but nothing happened, and I applied for this debate on 18 June. Since then I have received another holding letter from the executive director saying that within the next two or three weeks he will inform me how he intends to present the matter to the county council's transportation committee. It is now over 18 months since I was told that a review of the road would be inaugurated.
I have not been told the conclusions of the comprehensive study that was completed in September 1979. I do not know whether the conclusions of the study were presented to the transportation committee, and I do not know the comments of the transportation committee. Even now, the executive director proposes to inform me within two or three weeks of what he will put before his committee, but he does not say when he will put the recommendations before the committee. It was because of the earlier procrastination by the council and its failure over a long period to reveal its thinking or to reach a conclusion that I was prompted to seek this debate.
I ask the Minister to press the council to bring an end to this prolonged and disgraceful inertia in the face of the continued loss of human life. It is not as if the council has refused to take action. It is simply that it will not say what it proposes to do and what it is thinking. Meanwhile, a whole community continues to suffer inconvenience and disruption, and there is a constant haemorrhage of human life that is totally unacceptable to the people of Bradford. I should like the Minister to shed some light on the matter and to press the West Yorkshire authority to respond to the feelings of local people.

2.54 a.m.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for giving me a moment of his time to comment on this unfortunate matter, and


I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) on raising the matter.
I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend has little responsibility for the situation that has arisen. It has arisen because the roads authority—the county council—has provided a dual carriageway through an area which was a community, but taken little account of the fact that the main line of communication between people on either side of the road requires them to cross it in some way.
As the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West said, there is a barrier about 3 ft high but a number of people try to cross it, with the result that a large section of the barrier is missing because people have managed to push their way through it. In the words of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West, the barrier represents something of a "Berlin wall".
There are lessons to be learnt which affect many of my constituents who drive into Bradford and often have to contend with pedestrians crossing the road in front of their vehicles. It is reasonable to expect that there should be pelican crossings and that drivers on the dual carriageway should be prepared to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience, in that they would be required to slow down from one point to another. If there is to be a barrier, to be fair to drivers as well as pedestrians, it should be a barrier that will deter people from trying to cross the road. There is no point in having a barrier that is easily surmountable. Drivers assume that pedestrians will not impede their passage, whereas that can easily happen. I can well understand the position of those pedestrians who do not like to go into the subways and find the kind of thing referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The situation that has arisen in Manchester Road, which is very much as the hon. and learned Gentleman described, should in future lead us to consider the needs of the pedestrian rather more than we have in the past. Subways and bridges across the road are not adequate. We should, above all, take the view that crossings on the same level as the road represent a more desirable system, and that in this case pelican crossings are probably best. I hope that the county council will look upon that as the way to proceed in the future.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and on his clear exposition of the problems that face his constituents in Manchester Road, Bradford. He forcefully put across his concern about the safety of this road and his feelings about the casualties that have been suffered along it.
What we have here is a situation which, as I understand it, results from the substantial improvement of the road as an important traffic route. That improvement was accompanied by measures intended to segregate pedestrians from vehicles by providing no less than nine specially constructed crossings along a 2-mile length of road. All those crossings are made by way of a footbridge or subway. At the same time, in order to discourage people from crossing on the surface—because this is a busy six-lane highway—a barrier was constructed along the full length of the central reservation.
I appreciate that the concern of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) is that the use of the bridges and subways is unattractive to some pedestrians, so that they prefer to cress on the surface, sometimes by scaling and sometimes by going through the holes in the barrier. This is not a suitable road to cross through the traffic flow, as I understand the description of it, and no doubt the crossing is made more dangerous by the scaling or getting through the 3ft high barrier in the middle, which reduces the ability of pedestrians to avoid danger. In those circumstances, it is extremely regrettable, but not very surprising, that some of those who have adopted that course have been killed or seriously injured.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, in whose constituency this problem arises, suggests that the reason why so many people are doing this is that the aged and disabled in particular do not like the bridges and subways. We are all familiar with complaints about large bridges, and certainly subways are often unattractive and even dangerous places in cities. Nevertheless, it must be the case—I am sure that it is—that many of the people who climb over the fence and cross the


road could perfectly well cope with the bridges and subways. I am afraid that a proportion of those who cross the road are prepared to risk life and limb to avoid the inconvenience of using the specially constructed crossings. I have been looking at some press cuttings, and some of the photographs that I have seen in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus show remarkably young and fit-looking people climbing over the barrier in the middle of the road, plainly preferring to run the risks involved to climbing up and over a bridge, for example.
Nevertheless, the people about whom concern has been expressed tonight are the elderly and disabled in particular. The solution which the hon. and learned Gentleman is urging on the local authority, and tonight on me, is the provision of pelican crossings so that people can cross in safety at surface level.
The first point that I must make—I must make this my principal point, because it is the constitutional position and I would mislead the House if I said otherwise—is that the proper allocation of responsibility here makes this firmly a problem for the West Yorkshire county council to decide and not one for me or for my right hon. Friend. Manchester Road, although an important and busy through-route, is not a trunk road for which the Ministry of Transport is the responsible authority. It is a principal road, which makes it the statutory responsibility of the county council. It is therefore its job, not that of myself or my right hon. Friend, to determine what pedestrian facilities are to be provided. That is very much the case at the moment.
Central Government involvement in these decisions has been reduced recently. Until June of last year my Department did concern itself with the siting of pelican crossings, and before then a local highway authority that wished to install such a crossing had to secure my right hon. Friend's consent. The Government take the general view that the central Government have been exercising far too many controls over the discharge by local authorities of their local responsibilities, and we felt that these controls should be reduced to a minimum. This control over pelican and other pedestrian crossings was removed as from 1 June 1979

and there is no central control over the provision of any sort of pedestrian crossing facility on local roads.
Even before June of last year it would not have helped very much, because it was never the practice for the Minister of Transport to initiate these proposals. The powers that the Minister used to have enabled him to refuse consent when local authorities wanted to install pedestrian crossings, if he thought that such a proposal was unsuitable. We do not believe that those controls and restraints should be exercised by the Government, who are not best placed to know the local needs or how to sort out local problems. Local authorities should be much more able than the Government to appreciate and assess a local situation and understand the views, concerns and fears of their ratepapers and inhabitants.
Because I strongly take the view that this is properly a matter for the local authority to decide, I must deliberately refrain from attempting, by a detailed study of the evidence from this distance, to put myself in a position of passing judgment on the merits of the case. Entirely on the general proposition I would say that on a wide, fast and busy road the best solution, in principle, must be the provision of adequate facilities conveniently placed to enable pedestrians to cross where and when they want, at their own speed, without waiting for traffic to stop, completely separated from traffic. I would be attracted to the general proposition and description of this road, which has all these purpose-built crossing facilities, put in at considerable expense, and is designed to ensure maximum pedestrian safety by keeping them away from the traffic.
I have heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I can, from his description, appreciate that many of the local residents find in practice that the bridges are substantial. We have all had experience of subways that are unattractive, particularly for the elderly and for women, because they are misused in all the ways that the hon. and learned Member mentioned.
There is a balance to be struck by the local authority. It must take the decision in this case. It has to examine the evidence before its eyes and within its experience, as well as listening to the submissions from hon. Members and anyone with views on behalf of the local community.


It must decide whether the situation is now so grave that it justifies further expenditure—in addition to that already embarked upon to provide subways and foot-bridges—and, consequently, the building of pelican crossings at points along the road.
We have disposed of the powers that we previously had to require our consent to any proposals put forward by the county council. I have nor consulted it closely because it would be inappropriate, in the light of what I have said, for me to start getting involved with something that is for it to decide. I am sure that it will note carefully the criticisms made by the hon. and learned Member of apparent delay

and inability to take a decision. The responsibility to take a decision is that of the county council. I am sure that it will have listened to everything that has been said and will take note of the reports of the debate. I hope that it will come to a conclusion rapidly and decide what is best to enable this road to function as a the same time provide a proper level of protection for pedestrians who want to cross it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock a.m.